Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2011, 03:15:50 AM

Title: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2011, 03:15:50 AM
Dear all,

I've been obliged to 'start a new topic' as it seems that every single thread where I subscribed - has been flamed to death and locked.  The good news is that they have not been deleted.

And there's more good news.  You guys have all called for us to run our batteries to the duration.  That experiment would have taken too long and the test itself too expensive to monitor.

However.  The guys have gone about this differently.  They flattened 3 of our batteries by running lights off them.  When the lights 'went out' was when the batteries were considered flat which was at 10.05 volts or thereby.  Immediately thereafter they ran our resistor element on our usual test.  Not only did we get the same level of oscillation but precisely the same level of heat dissipated - related to that oscillation.  Which was proof that the energy in that oscillation is indeed NOT coming from the battery supply.

We have long argued that the battery is a passive component in the circuit.  I'll give a link to that paper as soon as I've found it and presuming that this post is allowed.  Here's hoping.

This is quite exciting.  It puts paid to the problems associated with flat batteries.  And more to the point - it's eloquent proof that the voltage from the battery is used without any attendant supply of current flow. 

And for those who are interested - we are still awaiting word from our editor as to whether or not that paper is to be published.  Fingers still crossed and we're all still busy spreading the news.

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here's the link to the second part of the two part paper - which deals with the thesis that requires this effect.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/08/140-heres-second-paper.html
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on November 09, 2011, 03:31:56 AM
Hey Rosie  ;]

that sounds like great news!  ;]

Was there any change in the batteries after running the test?

Good to see ya back.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2011, 03:34:54 AM
Hey Rosie  ;]

that sounds like great news!  ;]

Was there any change in the batteries after running the test?

Good to see ya back.  ;]

Magsy - always a pleasure to see you there.  No.  The voltage stays the same.  But they're going to try this on faster frequencies to test it more fully.  The point is that the resistor is showing some hefty wattage dissipation - which is extraordinary.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on November 09, 2011, 03:47:21 AM
Hey Rose

Well I really hope this works out for you.  ;]

Gotoluc is in S Africa (still I believe).  Poynt asked him to stop by to see you if he can.  But I think he is far from you. Maybe next year. ;]

Best wishes on this one.  Ill be around, and around, and...  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2011, 03:54:08 AM
Hey Rose

Well I really hope this works out for you.  ;]

Gotoluc is in S Africa (still I believe).  Poynt asked him to stop by to see you if he can.  But I think he is far from you. Maybe next year. ;]

Best wishes on this one.  Ill be around, and around, and...  ;]

Mags

Why did I not hear of this sooner?  I could have gone to Goto if required.  I'm a big fan of his.  If he's in SA he's reachable.

And I too, 'stick around' Magsy.   ;D  Those trolls never quite manage to kill all this good news.  I see much is happening all over the place.  Grand.  Long may it last.  Remember how suddenly that Berlin wall collapsed.  It became irrelevant - IN A MOMENT.  That's what's going to happen to all our 'free energy' evidence.  They'll just suddenly become very acceptable - and very delectable.  But we're not quite there.  But every bit helps.

As ever,
Rosie

Edited
Deleted 'hopes' and added 'evidence'.  It's more to the point.   ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bob Smith on November 09, 2011, 04:08:58 AM
Quote
Not only did we get the same level of oscillation but precisely the same level of heat dissipated - related to that oscillation.  Which was proof that the energy in that oscillation is indeed NOT coming from the battery supply.

We have long argued that the battery is a passive component in the circuit.

Rosie,
The above words jumped out at me for reasons I can't get into right now. Suffice it to say that they confirm my long-held belief that this was possible. Great to see you back in action. Looking forward to your posts.
Bob
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2011, 04:49:32 AM
Rosie,
The above words jumped out at me for reasons I can't get into right now. Suffice it to say that they confirm my long-held belief that this was possible. Great to see you back in action. Looking forward to your posts.
Bob

Thanks Bob.  But it's probably only temporary.  The trolls are bound to find me - sooner or later.  And it's their mission to close down all my threads and all this good news.   But while I can - I do as needs must.  But the news is, indeed, all good.  Just we cannot get word from our editors as to the status of that paper.  Still waiting. But somehow the news is spreading.  Which is always a good thing.  And it's certainly not only on our own NERD technology.  Plenty of evidence - and all grist to the mill.  Just so wonderful.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Guys,

I now have a little more information here.  The heat dissipated was not measured.  That's to be done today.  Nor could they adjust the frequency as they were using a 555 single mosfet in the Q2 position as it relates to the schematic in the paper.  In other words it was a continuous oscillation with the applied negative signal from the 555.  The resistor was, however too hot to handle - therefore it must have been in excess of 45 degrees or thereby.  That means too that it was upwards of 8 watts.  They'll firm up on these numbers sometime today.  Also.  NOTA BENE - the battery voltage was too low to 'light' a standard light.  Yet it makes no difference to the amplitude of that oscillation - nor to the efficiency with which it dissipates heat.  But there was no evidence of a recharge in the battery.  However, and as ever, nor was there evidence of discharge.  Clearly the batteries' contribution is passive - at best.  That's been our suggestion from the get go.  However we've seen a slight rise in battery voltage at high frequencies.  It will be a bonus if the present 'flat' condition of the battery can increase in voltage.

What is significant is that if the batteries are able to secure that perpetuated imbalance in potential difference - then clearly that's their only required contribution.  In other words it seems to add to or to subtract from the potential difference at the load - which then drives that oscillation.  I'll see if I can extrapolate the appropriate from our paper that covers this.  For some reason this does not copy over.  But it's covered in the first three para's under conclusion.  I'll add that link again.

It's all very interesting.
Regards,
Rosemary


http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/08/140-heres-second-paper.html
[/quote]

Actually I've finally managed to copy it over.  Here it is.

The voltages across the battery and RSHUNT are at 180 degrees in anti-phase indicating that the battery is charged and discharged depending on the directional flow of current. When the full oscillation amplitude is established, then the counter-clockwise current is seen to peak when the battery voltage is approximately double its rated capacity. And, correspondingly, the clockwise current peaks when the battery voltage approximates zero (Fig 3). If the CEMF from inductive circuit components, including RL1 and the wire, are in fact the energy supply sources driving this oscillation, then it appears that the amount of energy that it is able to generate is somehow related to and, possibly, indirectly determined by, the amount of potential difference at the battery. This can be explained as the current that is induced from the oscillation, adds to or subtracts from the potential difference at the supply. It thereby imposes the battery supply’s innate imbalance into each phase, which increases the potential difference available to the circuit to drive that oscillation.

Effectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity.

A capacitor has no retained potential difference after a discharge of its energy. Therefore, to test whether this retained potential difference is a required condition to enable the oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during operation when the oscillation was fully established. The batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that the retained potential difference at the primary supply source is required, if not entirely responsible, for driving this oscillation. Which, in turn, points to the need for any applications of this technology that are either restricted to battery supply sources or, if a grid supply is used, that the circuit is applied directly in series with that supply source thereby being able to access the potential difference at that supply.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on November 09, 2011, 10:54:12 PM
Hello Rosemary,

All past issues aside I enjoyed this news, seems a more scientific and respectful approach is being adopted this time, good to see, and be a part of :)

(Trolls stay away please)!

I have a few questions:

Would it be possible to run a test on 1 - 6 battery banks applying a Fibonacci sequence (amongst others) to test runs (multiple implications) and comparing the detailed variable precise recorded results in a nice graph (s) ?

If voltage remains constant under load with batteries, and yet capacitor voltage testing trends to zero does it suggest the mechanical-energetic mass of the batteries is critical to maintaining a flow positive excess pressure. ? And if so, does this support your previous claim that the mass of the batteries is absolutely essential to achieving the oscillation event ?

For the record, on this, I think your absolutely correct :)

My final question, and I must admit also an indulgence, is a simple low cost proposition...

Place a single knackered out old car battery in a crappy old falling down shed, stick your circuit on it, and let it run. Place the heating element in a bucket of water to maintain safe operating temperatures, and your heat-sink provides your cup of tea once a week when you check and record the variables, hydrated only if you condense the steam vapor that is... also I would enjoy some fireworks stacked floor to ceiling in the shed :)

Cost you one cheap shed, one cheap car battery, one circuit, one heater element, one bucket and some water... + cuppa tea brewing facilities (very important ;))

If the shed burns down gotta go investigate... If the reports come in regularly and accurately for evermore... you really got something... and a nice cuppa tea to discuss it over with your team!

Potential difference...

RM ;)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 10, 2011, 04:41:58 AM
Guys,

A few more delays here.  The effort is being made to get all this information readable on a standard oscilloscope.  Apparently this is doable.  We'll see.

Also.  For those that can do this - please check out that configuration on simulated software.  As has been pointed out you do not need that Q-array.  Just use Q2 - per the schematic - and add a diode across the switch.  Then apply a negative charge to the gate of Q2.  It should show that same waveform - sinusoidal - crossing zero which is typical of the oscillation.  The point is this.  There is no explanation for the current that moves 'clockwise' through the circuit.  In terms of conventional understandings the current flow - above zero - should represent a discharge from the battery supply.  This is the point.  How come it is discharging when there is no path for that discharge of that current through the switch?  In other words the circuit is 'open'?

This is the real anomaly that we're dealing with.  Simulation software programs allow for it.  I would love to know how come?  Unless the transistor is compromised and - in fact - stays closed.  But it doesn't.  There's nothing wrong with those MOSFETS.

And with reference to RM's post - I am tired of confronting that 'green eyed monster'.  Please be informed.  We have NOTHING that confronts conventional science.  If we did - then we would not be able to replicate this so easily on all that software and on the three or four circuits that the guys have now put together.  Nor does the thesis represent a departure from standard physics.  So.  What's new?  Indeed there's nothing new.  It is very important that you understand this.  The circuit is just one of many, many ways to prove that electromotive force is generative.  In other words back electromotive force is the result of generated and not stored energy. 

This should be of very real interest to anyone who's advancing clean green.  Just remember that time is running out.  We really need this technology.  It's understandable that there are those who seem to dislike me.  But my popularity is NOT the issue.  The technology is.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here's where I think we at.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/11/180-golly-i-think-this-may-be-verging.html

And here's a little something for our dear trolls

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/11/182-soft-underbelly-of-forum-and-indeed.html
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 11, 2011, 07:05:56 AM
Dear all,

Just a quick update.  The circuit is now being run off the functions generator.  But the heat dissipated has been increased to 73 degrees from a previous 50 degrees - or thereby.  They're now measuring the heat output.

Their objective - at this stage - is to tweak the offset to a setting that will induce an increase in the heat dissipated to that runaway number that we got when we got water to boil.  You must bear in mind that they're trying to manage all this to forge a way of replicating the test without the use of that beautiful Le Croy. And they're doing this on 'flat' batteries' to keep evidence that the energy is not from that supply. This so that anyone who wants to - can replicate.  But it's still working in the dark - and thus far they've only found out how to increase the amount of energy dissipated.  And, obviously, that they can see it on their standard oscilloscope.  One needs to see that oscillation which is rather crucial to the argument if not entirely necessary to these over unity results.

I'm not going to post here until those tests are completed.  It could be a week or so - or more.  Meanwhile it is very clear that the voltage from those flat batteries do not make any material difference to the amount of heat dissipated.  This is clearly an energy that his being 'liberated' - dare I say it - from the material of the resistor.  Otherwise it's from our environment - and that argument dribbles to death for its want of logic.

I'll continue to post on my blog - for those very, very few who may be interested.  lol

Kindest regards.  By the way - check out the thread on Rossi's technology.  It's good news indeed.
Rosemary

Here's my blog link.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/

And for the purists - here's yet another link to our paper.  Please read it.  It does not conflict with the standard model and I'm assured that it's relatively easy to understand. It just changes the perspective - ever so slightly - to explain what is otherwise not explicable.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/08/140-heres-second-paper.html

ADDED

and changed 'every' to 'ever'.   ;D

Just a small note here.  I go to some considerable lengths to detail changes to my posts as, among too many accusations to be listed here - I'm also accused of 'changing' my posts.  I do.  Often.  But only because my typing is very much a victim of my poor eyesight. 

Anyway.  Onwards and upwards.  As ever,
R
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Doug1 on November 13, 2011, 02:05:38 PM
I thought your blog was very well writen. I dont understand why you concern youself with trolls. They are a part of life. Free will does not come with a compass . 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Hope on November 13, 2011, 04:20:32 PM
Excellent article! You tell what has been hidden for a LONG time.  This is what our text books have deleted since the early 1900's.   Maxwell knew of this but they shortened his work into sniveling easy to learn hogwash.  Thank you Lady Rose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2011, 06:44:28 AM
Hope and Doug - thanks for the vote of confidence.

And to those who read this thread - I apologise for doing this again - but here's yet another link to the blog.  I am way more intrigued with this cold fusion technology than our own - at the moment.  This because it's over unity - 'IN THE BAG' - ready to sell.  It is just wonderful news for us all.  Just read the first two posts in that blog.

Kindest and best as ever,
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 20, 2011, 05:25:38 PM
Hi Guys,

I battled to find this thread. I finally manged to write a post.  And then I lost it.  Most irritating.  >:(

Anyway.  I only started this thread because I wanted to keep some evidence in the public eye that over unity was with us.  Alive and well - so to speak.  That and to show Poynty et al that I am NOT banned.  The work continues - in the background - but it's not being done by me.  It's those brave collaborators who fit these tests in when and as they can from the time they can spare from earning a living.  And that time is always constrained.  I'm sure you all know the feeling.

Anyway.  The bar has been set - with Rossi's evidence.  It makes our own work rather irrelevant - for now.  I see it as possibly being required if Rossi's technology gets mired in Court battles between him and any competing interests.  Because we're actually doing the same thing - but, on our part, we're using rather more prosaic applications of the electric current than Rossi.  But they both generate the required heat signatures.  Golly.  I've just re-read this.  It sounds so boastful. Obviously we're nowhere near Rossi's level of development. 

I need to mention this.  While I wholeheartedly support any work towards over unity - I have some, as yet, unspoken reserves about the efficacy of all this applied to electric motors.  I just don't see it.  I'd love to be proved wrong.  I think it's there however.  But I think it needs the construct of a magnetic monopole.  Doable.  But way outside our own budget as I think the magnets need to be cast.  I think there's a thread about this somewhere here - but I don't have the appetite to look for it.  Anyway the work is definitely open sourced - so it can't be 'owned' so to speak.  And more to the point, once that thing is manufactured then I think we'll find that 'perpetual motion' thing.  In fact I suspect it'll need some applied energy to stop that spin.  Which also means that if there's any validity to our Inductive Laws, and obviously there is, lol, then we should be able to generate a perpetual current. 

In any event.  Here's the link to the blogspot.  I'll not continue this thread unless it's ever required.  And to those who have done so - thanks for reading here.  Meanwhile - think dark energy.  I'm entirely satisfied that this will be acknowledged in the near future.  And will be seen for what it is - which is all from the 'dark' force.  Or, - more to the point - tje 'magnetic' force. 

It's a wonderful future that Rossi and others are making for us.  I just haven't stopped smiling for weeks now.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED

Here's that post in my blogspot.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/11/195-truth-to-tell.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/11/195-truth-to-tell.html)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TheCell on November 20, 2011, 07:51:31 PM
Two important men confirm the effect:

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/tesla.html
->The scalar wave battery charger (Bedini)


http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/scalchrg.htm

The scalar battery charger tests (Naudin)
<quote Naudin>
The most strange event is that after 19 hours of running time,
the battery voltage drop to 0 volts,
and the motor continued to run ( !!! ?? !!! ).
It seemed that the condensators could maintained power to supply motor
after this first deadline.
You could see on my report that the charge of battery restart after,
for new 4 hours ( strange and curious event ?? ).
<quote end>
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TheCell on November 20, 2011, 07:53:02 PM
.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 07, 2012, 06:49:36 AM
Sorry - this has been duplicated.  Just look at the post hereunder.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on January 07, 2012, 07:03:16 AM
Hey Rose  ;]

Sounds like a good thing. ;]    Will be very interesting.  ;)

I have a question.  The heating element you used. Do you know any specs on it?

Like cold resistance, and running temp resistance

Inductance?  Hot and cold.

And rated voltage and current.

I have a possible alternative way of doing your project. Possibly easier.  :o ;)

I just want to get some idea of what those heating elements specs are to see if it fits my idea.  Will share if Im right. ;]

Thanks and all the best! ;]

Magsy  :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 07, 2012, 07:42:49 AM
THROWING THE GAUNTLET

Hello everyone,

 ;D

I've salvaged this thread from the back of beyond - to make public our invitation to both Poynty and Steven E Jones to evaluate our experiment that we can claim their much vaunted prizes.  I've also extended the offer to Harti - but am reasonably sure that he'll not be interested as he's already declined this before. 

In any event, the motive for this was that Ramset is now on the hunt to deny some poor Russian enthusiast the opportunity to successfully present his own experimental evidence.  I've described what I think may be Ramset's motives in the this post which, as ever, carries the caveat that this is simply my opinion.  But frankly I'm tired of this 'attack' on those many claims of our poor unsuspecting experimentalists.  The truth is that they none of them access the required sophistication of measuring equipment and their claims are then hobbled.   Here's that link.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/221-another-troll-alert.html

But as it IS my opinion then my motive here is to test the intention behind Poynty's and, for that matter, Steven E Jone's much vaunted prize offer for proof of over unity.  It is only in the offer of those prizes that they have any authority to comment at all. I trust you all realise this.  Our own results are detailed in a 2-part paper that has now been sent to all parties.  This gives a comprehensive account of the extent of our claim and the measurement protocols applied to those experiments.   I've never before put this to them for their validation because, quite frankly, to challenge them for the prize is like taking candy from children.  Just way too easy.  BUT.  I now think that this will HELP us all to bury those prejudices against over unity.  And certainly it will test he actual agenda behind both those personalities.

Poynty and sundry other contributors who remain 'anonymous' run a blogspot on the internet dedicated to hate speech against me.  But the point is this.  They claim that our measurements are fraudulent - therefore, by extension I am a FRAUD.  Therefore, indeed, it is long overdue that I defend our claim. Here's a link to my public announcement of this.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/ (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/)

We all have an overriding concern that our equipment will be tampered with and that both Steven E Jones and Poynty Point - may misrepresent the data that they test.  This is based on the fact that Steven E Jones has not shown himself to be impartial in the evaluation of Rossi's device technology related to LENR - or Cold fusion as Rossi prefers to call it.  He has indulged in an unsubstantiated 'attack' on the character of Rossi that is entirely inappropriate to this Rossi's work - to the professionalism that calls for some protection of one's colleagues good name in the face of unsubstantiated allegations - and to the assessment of the results that Rossi claims which, for some reason and despite expert accreditation, Steven prefers to REFUTE.  Then there's Poynty's need for impartiality.  You will all note that he is an active contributor to the 'hate speech' related to that blogspot.  Why?  Why the need to go out of one's way to besmirch my name - when I'm guilty of nothing more than PROVING over unity?    Here's that link.

http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ (http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/)

So.  In the light of this highly emotional and partial attack on me and my good name, we are none of us inclined to entirely trust either party.  Therefore we will not send any apparatus to such highly partial adjudicators.  Rather I've invited them to come here.  We'll film the necessary, subject to their acceptance of this proposal.  If there's any problem with the availability of funding to afford that trip then let us know.  We could possibly manage a small contribution from that sale of Professor's coins when we get them, or from the prize money that Poynty et al have solicited.  The terms of that acceptance are, in any event detailed in my post.

 ;D

So.  That's the gauntlet - ON THE GROUND.  Let's now see what comes of this.  If ANYTHING.  If the claim is rejected then it must be based on a measured argument which will also require reference to that paper.  For the record, they are free to publish both papers in their blogs or in this blog.  And may I remind you all.  Our claim is NOT COP greater anything at all.  It is COP INFINITY.  That is the measurement that we PROVE despite their facile denials of this.

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edits.  I kept posting the wrong link.  Apologies.  Hopefully it's now right.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 07, 2012, 07:57:18 AM
Hey Rose  ;]

Sounds like a good thing. ;]    Will be very interesting.  ;)

I have a question.  The heating element you used. Do you know any specs on it?

Like cold resistance, and running temp resistance

Inductance?  Hot and cold.

And rated voltage and current.

I have a possible alternative way of doing your project. Possibly easier.  :o ;)

I just want to get some idea of what those heating elements specs are to see if it fits my idea.  Will share if Im right. ;]

Thanks and all the best! ;]

Magsy  :-*

MAGSY  - HELLO and compliments of the season.  I'll get you those specs and either post it here or email it to you.  But I'll need to do this tomorrow.  I've got to run.

Take care.
All the very, very best Magsy  - for the New Year.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on January 07, 2012, 08:07:10 AM
Thanks Rose   ;]
And Happy New years To Yew Tew.  ;]

No Rush.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 12:31:56 AM
Hi all.

Harti has replied with some questions.  He's also sent a PDF outlining 'terms and conditions' - which I'm not able to open.  I'll ask for this to be forwarded.  It seems there may be some residual interest.

Regarding Poynty and Steven E Jones - I have heard NOTHING.  Not even receipt of my email.  Usually Poynty replies.  It's rather strange.  If I did not know better I'd guess that he is MOST ANXIOUS that no-one reference our tests or our papers - lest that belie their own lies about our results.

Unless they actually take up our challenge then I must assume that they are not so much interested in proving something that they already know works.  What a joke.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on January 08, 2012, 01:27:53 AM
Rose,

You can read about the prize over here:

http://www.overunity.com/5707/overunity-prize-conditions-for-1-watt-device-pdf-file-attached/

GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 01:36:33 AM
Rose,

You can read about the prize over here:

http://www.overunity.com/5707/overunity-prize-conditions-for-1-watt-device-pdf-file-attached/ (http://www.overunity.com/5707/overunity-prize-conditions-for-1-watt-device-pdf-file-attached/)

GL.

Thanks Groundloop - and compliments of the season.  I've heard from Harti.  And waiting to hear from Poynty.

Kindest regards,
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: ramset on January 08, 2012, 03:58:57 AM
Dear Rose
  I see you are throwing my name around in a very bad way?Something about me  Tinsel Koala and your COP 17 thread at Energetic?
It is quite true I was very excited to see such a claim ...and the Papers/documentations that were attached to it.
It is also true that I Pm'd TinselKoala and shared what I felt would surely be a valid well documented COP 17 event.

 The above is the total extent of my involvement in this matter!
Please stop turning what seems to have become a bad experience for you into something I had anything whatsoever to do with!

  As far as Steve myself and Professor Savic
You Could not be more incorrect if you tried!!
And Yes Once again I feel I have found something that TinselKoala can help Test .
And I will gladly welcome his Help !!this time I have much more understanding about what is actually taking place ,and am Completely Confident that
there is a heretofore unexplained anomaly taking place.


And that is the biggest reason I chose a certain Venue to test it ,Why should we always preach to the Choir.
If you believe in what you have Bring it to the toughest  crowd you can find!
The rest will be easy.
Thats how I roll Rosy........................


I find your post/comments Completely uninformed and totally inappropriate!
That is all I will say about this !


Cept
Have a happy new year and learn to look Before you leap!
Chetkremens@gmail.com







Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 05:34:04 AM
Dear Chet, or is it Ramset? or, as I now read Cept?

What a pleasant surprise to see an open letter from you.  It's also rather pleasant to see that your command of English is rather more comprehensive than you've led us to believe in your previous postings.  My ONLY objection to your previous reference to me was in the gratuitous inclusion of that unfortunate link to myself in a rather compromising adults only context that was provided by FuzzyTomCat - off forum - that you provided for every reader and member 'on' forum.  For some reason Glen posts as FuzzyTomCat - but denies that the link has anything at all to do with himself.  Which would be plausible - if one suspends all critical faculties and simply believes in miracles of co-incidence.  Now.  THAT reference can be considered 'inappropriate' in the true sense of the word.  Not my opinions.  They're my inalienable right to express - provided only that I can also substantiate them - which I do.  You see Chet, Ramset, Cept, whoever you are - it's very important to be able to qualify one's opinion - else one can be accused of imposing this on the general public as part of an agenda.  Or, indeed, as a kind of deluded lunacy.  God forbid that I fall into that bracket.   ;D

You say you don't want to preach to the choir - and, from the rather breathless enthusiasm that you inject in your posts at Overunity.com - we all get the general impression that you're trying to promote any experimental evidence of a breach in unity.   IF, indeed, this is your intention - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  I will forward you our papers on proof of this.  But better still.  Just refer to Andrea Rossi's impeccable work.  He has already managed to produce megawatts of energy at the cost of a spoonful of Nickel and a little bit of hydrogen.  Effectively he's getting the full force of nuclear efficiences without the attendant emissions associated with nuclear energies. 

The DANGERS associated with the interventions of TinselKoala and Poynt.99 and others - is that they have an agenda to DENY.  And it is our personal experience that they're equipped to DENY experimental evidence in the face of that evidence.  The unfortunate truth is that you seem to attribute them both with qualities of discernment that qualifies them for the job.  INDEED.  They are well qualified.  They are well schooled in the art of denial and in the art of calumny.  You only need to refer to their blogspot about me - to get the full view of this.  You see this I trust.  When they CANNOT argue the evidence, then they resort of name calling and hate speech - in their rather sad efforts to deflect from the technology - which SHOULD be their only emphasis. 

The sad and further truth is that they - these trolls - are also able to persuade some readers - thankfully NOT the majority - that there is no such thing as over unity.  Sadly - that is their agenda.  And by soliciting their comment you then can be assured that - as day follows night - they will dismiss any such claims - where they can.  And where they can't then, as mentioned - they will simply resort to character assassination.  That too is INAPPROPRIATE - in the true sense of the word.

Which is precisely why it is that there are still many members of this forum who are NOT aware of our own breach of elusive barriers.  And which is also why it is that Poynty et al - are most anxious to NEVER mention Rossi's work.  That would put them out of business.  Unlike me - Rossi has the good sense to 'stay off' these forums.  That way, wherever it is that he gets attacked - which is inevitable - he does not need to deal with with the kind of allegations that I'm forced to deal with.

So.  IF indeed you rally those forces, as you did with me, you will, most certainly have that orchestrated 'outrage' in the face of a simple claim and our poor Serbian Professor will be entirely defeated.  Which, clearly, is your motive.  You've done this before - to good force and effect.  Why stop now? 

I've made a claim for Poynty's and Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones's prizes.  For some reason Poynty's not going to take up our claim.  Clearly he smells defeat.  May you too have a wonderful year.  I'd prefer it that you did not do it at the expense of these hard faught efforts of ours.  And I hope too that that poor Russian's technology survives any exposure to you at all.  - As I said.  If it's energy efficiencies you're looking for.  It's all to hand.  I'll get you a link to Andrea Rossi's work and include that in my email to you - when I'll also forward those papers.

Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: ramset on January 08, 2012, 05:48:31 AM
Rosy
Quote:
 My ONLY objection to your previous reference to me was in the gratuitous inclusion of that unfortunate link to myself in a rather compromising adults only context that was provided by FuzzyTomCat - off forum - that you provided for every reader and member 'on' forum. 
----------------------------------------------------
I must say ....I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about!!
I am a man of very strong moral convictions and I engage in no such behavior . [not saying I'm beyond temptation]
Please Email me with this BizMess!! {the part where I knowingly posted Such Private things]


Thank you
Chetkremens@gmail.com

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 05:54:58 AM
Rosy
Quote:
 My ONLY objection to your previous reference to me was in the gratuitous inclusion of that unfortunate link to myself in a rather compromising adults only context that was provided by FuzzyTomCat - off forum - that you provided for every reader and member 'on' forum. 
----------------------------------------------------
I must say ....I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about!!
I am a man of very strong moral convictions and I engage in no such behavior . [not saying I'm beyond temptation]
Please Email me with this BizMess!! {the part where I knowingly posted Such Private things]


Thank you
Chetkremens@gmail.com

Are you denying this?   Look it up for yourself.

R

ADDED
Unless - by now - that post has been deleted.  But there are many of us here who remember that reference - chet - ramset - whatever.

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: ramset on January 08, 2012, 06:19:54 AM
Just for clarity
Are you saying I knowingly posted a link to some "aDult content" material of you?
On this Forum?
Or any other?


If thats what you are saying.....
DENY Isn't a big enough word!!


PLEASE ANYBODY THATS READING THIS
POST A LINK !!


N  E  V  E  R     E  V  E  R       N  O  W  A  Y     N  O     H  O  W 
F A G I T A B O U T I T !!
END OF STORY...................


BTW Rosie
Cept Is slang for "Except" in NYC [and most of the continental USA]
Thats all I will say
Except have a happy New Year

Have a nice day!
Chet [my name]
Edit
Removed silly remark
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 06:45:36 AM
My dear Chet,

If, as you claim - you did not provide that link - then - indeed - I, and one or two members who alerted me to it - must be entirely deluded.  Frankly I'm inclined to believe that you may have 'inadvertently' posted it.  Either way - it did not 'stop the world from spinning'.  And I was mildly amused at best because that - like so many other representations about me are absurd and rather comical.  You probably have seen them on that 'hate blog' dedicated to me.  But don't let that monopolise your attention.  More relevant to the issue are those many other points that I raised.  I wonder if I can impose on you to comment

It is a fact that we have proved that electric current has a dual charge potential.  It is a fact that we have measured infinite COP.  It is a fact that we have taken water to boil at NO MEASURED COST OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY.  It is a fact that these results were required and predicted in terms of a magnetic field model.  It is a fact, therefore, that we qualify for Poynty's over unity prize.  And it is also a FACT that Poynty has NOT  responded to our challenge for his prize.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps you can enlighten us.  You're knee deep in there.

It is also a FACT that ALL these forums are very carefully NOT talking about Rossi's technology which, frankly outperforms ALL our claims.  Again.  I wonder why that is?

Do advise us.  You really need to - if we're to engage in all this apparent enthusiasm for over unity results.  It would be very sad to learn that you never reference our own work because Poynty and Harvey have advised you all that it doesn't work. 

Regards
Rosemary

And about that 'cept' thing.  I mistakenly thought you were signing your letter.  Forgive me.  I'm that old that I'm entirely unschooled in internet 'speak'.  I take it that your name is Chet?  is that right?  It's difficult to work it out - the more so as none of you expose your ACTUAL identities.  More's the pity.  it makes me think that I'm engaging with 'talking heads'.  Very confusing.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on January 08, 2012, 07:36:35 AM
Three days in moderation for anyone to see the post I just deleted ..... it's not worth my time or expertise now.

Fuzzy
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: CuriousChris on January 08, 2012, 07:47:35 AM
Hi Rosemary

About your gauntlet statement.

I have often considered offering a small prize to help someone continue their research into OU. $10K I know its not much but all I could afford. but that's not the point of my reply. my point is I would not accept a gauntlet thrown down such as yours.

Unless I could independently replicate the process that resulted in OU in a pristine environment where I control or at least am sure no one else controls all the variables, I simply would not do it. So perhaps you could look at changing the location to one that is independent. you are more likely to get a (better) response.

CC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 08:02:08 AM
Hi Rosemary

About your gauntlet statement.

I have often considered offering a small prize to help someone continue their research into OU. $10K I know its not much but all I could afford. but that's not the point of my reply. my point is I would not accept a gauntlet thrown down such as yours.

Unless I could independently replicate the process that resulted in OU in a pristine environment where I control or at least am sure no one else controls all the variables, I simply would not do it. So perhaps you could look at changing the location to one that is independent. you are more likely to get a (better) response.

CC

Dear Curious Chris,

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing anyone at all from replicating our circuit.  The specs are well defined and - subject to an ability to access some reasonably proficient measuring apparatus - it is all very doable.

The 'gauntlet' is to remind our readers that our claim has been DENIED without any attempts at replication - other than Poynty's own early efforts on his simulation program.  He then departed into a spurious set of further tests in an attempt to deny those very results.  But even that was too late.  The replications on simulated software have now been widely tested.

The point is this.  We have results that should be added to the general pool of evidence that over unity results are not some rather fanciful concepts from some equally fanciful promoters - as is suggested.  They are all real.  Right up to and including the work done on this forum.  But they're also widely dismissed.  And that is courtesy the tireless efforts of those 'nay sayers'.  I am simply proposing that IF indeed, they want proof of over unity - then put foot and pull finger.  Because we've done this.  Rossi has done this.  But so have SO MANY OTHERS.  They ALL die a natural death on these forums.  And when these dedicated 'discreditors' can't attack the technology they resort to attacking the character.  Their motives are transparently obvious.  I have ample proof of this.

There is absolutely NO way I would send our apparatus to Poynty or to Steve.  Poynty I know is NOT intellectually honest.  And Steve is on record as attacking Rossi's technology on the basis of the man's character - and in the face of wide expert accreditation.  Therefore we would need to protect the technology against any spurious accreditation that may, as it seems to, carry an agenda.  The ONLY way this could be protected is to ensure that they do NOT tamper with the evidence.  So.  We establish the required measurement protocols.  We establish the required parameters for proof.  And then we show this in a demonstration where there is no way that they can 'fudge' the results. 

Your point is valid.  It needs independent accreditation.  But that accreditation needs must be impartial.  And this is absolutely NOT evident from Poynty.  Nor for that matter - from Steven E Jones.  But in as much has Steve has indicated an interest in replicating - I may yet need to retract this opinion.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

If you yourself - want to do a replication then email me at ainslie@mweb.co.za.  I will forward you those papers.  Nor do any of us want that prize money that may or may not be on offer by you.  We're only challenging Poynty et al on that basis because it gives us the contractual  'right' to engage.  And I'm not sure that Poynty can refuse that engagement on any moral ground at all.  That he does not like me also does not cut it. 

 ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 08, 2012, 06:00:53 PM
My my you've been a busy little beaver Rosemary. So busy in fact that evidently you've forgotten to take your condiments.

Relax and get a grip on reality Rosemary.

When you can demonstrate proper measurement protocol and measurement interpretation, AND still produce an OU result, THEN I will consider your application for the prize. I am most certain Stefan would be in agreement.

Failing that, your measurements and erroneous conclusions were and remain seriously flawed.

I would strongly suggest you refrain from attacking the professor, Chet, and myself, and put that time to better use by brushing up on power measurement 101.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 08:53:58 PM
Hello Poynty Point,

I was wondering if you'd write.  Always a pleasure to hear from you.  And I trust you enjoyed the seasonal festivities.  You mention something about not taking my condiments?  Condiments?  Not sure what you mean.  Condiments are the spice of life?  I'm not sure that you didn't mean something else.  Very confusing.  But indeed.  I do enjoy spices.  In fact I LOVE cooking.  It's a kind of hobby of mine.  Let me know what you actually meant.  I'm rather curious.   

Now.  You write that I've been busy.  On the contrary.  I should have been working on my thesis as it relates to gravity.  Instead of which I've spent the last 24 hours engrossed in this challenge of ours for your prize money.  Very alluring. And all six of us are MOST anxious to put our best foot forward and see if we can separate you from this.  Our intention is, however, entirely commendable.  Because when we've defrayed your travel costs then we'll donate the balance to someone like Gotoluc or some worthy experimentalist that you guys nominate - to buy some much needed broadband oscilloscopes. 

The conditions that we require may be slightly 'unusual'.  You see I've been following the comments that you subscribe to on that blog that you've dedicated to me - and that is simply an unfortunate schedule of some rather inappropriate hate speech.  Under usual circumstances one could appeal to Wiki to get you to remove that blog.  But frankly I get a real kick out of reading it - on a daily basis.  It reminds me how frightened you all are that the whole world may take our claim seriously.  And I see it as a kind of hysterical effort to try and prevent this.  It lacks a certain want of constraint - is my only criticism.  But good heavens.  It's always a pleasure to indulge one's freedoms of expression.  And, frankly, it's as well that I know how fond you all are of me.  Else I'd be left with the distinct impression that you didn't like me.  Golly.

Here's that link.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ (http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/)

But.  To the point.  The sad truth is that your intentions there are probably to spread the word that our experimental evidence is based on fallacious measurements.  You're very likely trying to imply that I'm a 'fraud' - in your efforts to deflect public attention from our rather extraordinary results.   Which means that a certain 'partiality' has crept into your general approach to this question.  And none of us collaborators are at all sure that you'll test our apparatus fairly.  It will likely NOT be handled with any judicious and scientific protocols that are required.  You see the problem?  I hope.  Let me try this again.  You have all contracted  to evaluate a claim without detailing the apparatus that you intend applying in that evaluation.  You realise, of course, that on ours and, indeed most experiments related to this 'art' of 'over unity' that it relies on certain frequencies.  Therefore these required subtleties of tuning also require sophisticated measuring equipment.  And I'm not sure that you can access this.  Then, even when it's to hand, I'm concerned that your agenda may best be served by doing some rather clumsy tuning.  And then you won't find that benefit.   So.  We put our heads together and came up with a solution.  It's detailed in my blog.  Let me know what you think.

Here's that link
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/222-we-claim-those-prizes-offered-by.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/222-we-claim-those-prizes-offered-by.html)

Regarding your claim that our measurements are wrong.  Not sure where?  Could you please point out where, in our paper, our protocols deviate from standard protocols.  I can assure you that our paper has been vetted by some rather weighty academics and, apart from one small error in one of our equations - it has only solicited the highest commendations.  And we have corrected that error in the pdf version that I sent you.  Feel free to publish it - here or anywhere.  And in the same way.  Feel free to comment.

I'm also a little concerned that you think I've been 'attacking' your - or indeed, anyone's good name?  Are you serious?  I thought it was the other way around.  I, after all, have the evidence in that blogspot that you contribute to.  What exactly do you based this concern on? Do let me know.  I'll attend to it immediately.  I'd be sorry to think that my comments are as mindless are those that are evident there - and indeed everywhere on your forum.

So.  Poynty Point.  I look forward to hearing from you again - in the near future.  It seems like this new year has started off well.  Certainly it's given me a renewed interest in these forums.  Much more dynamic - wouldn't you say?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 09, 2012, 02:59:13 AM
The sad truth is that your intentions there are probably to spread the word that our experimental evidence is based on fallacious measurements.  You're very likely trying to imply that I'm a 'fraud' - in your efforts to deflect public attention from our rather extraordinary results.
Being "fallacious" and a "fraud" implies that the person or persons behind it are fully aware of what they are perpetrating. This would be affording too much credit in your case.
The truth is that your results are erroneous not because you are trying to be fraudulent, but because of your ignorance regarding these types of measurements and circuits.
 
Regarding your link and silly offer, I am certain I've already made my comments above quite clear, and there is no need to repeat nor expound on them. If it is not clear to you, please have someone explain it to you.
 
.99
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 09, 2012, 08:10:08 AM
My dear Poynty Point,
 
Do I detect that spider - 'pinned and wriggling to the wall' that TS Eliot refers to?  Are you suffering from that 'too, too bright light' - that shines on your motives?  Are you concerned that we, the public, will learn that behind all that dismissive 'bluff and blunder' that you now flaunt - is an entire lack of any ability to evaluate any energy - at all?  Is that the problem? 
 
With the utmost respect I get the distinct impression that you - and Ramset for that matter, are both avoiding the issue.  Let me see if I can remind you both.
 
You only need to refer to our paper.  We detail the measurement protocol applied to our test.  Very well, I might add.  Then we extrapolate the values related to 4 tests which are a merely a small sample of over 100 tests that we have on our data base.  They ALL result in a 'negative wattage'.  Now, you and I both know that if the energy dissipated at a load resistor - (that thing that you refer to as POUT) - exceeds the energy that is supplied by a supply source - (which you also erroneously refer to as PIN) - THEN - in the immortal words of our astronauts - 'HOUSTON.  WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM'.   You see there is nothing within the standard model that allows for this.  The ASSUMPTION is that one can never exceed the amount of energy first delivered by the supply source - again that PIN thing. 
 
SO.  Not only do we prove that we exceed unity - but by the very measurements themselves - we prove that there must be supplied by an alternative energy source.  Which is REMARKABLE.  Because that goes against the standard model.  But all is not lost.  Because, you see this I trust.  Einstein himself proposed that energy is within matter.  We're simply able to endorse this fact.  AND.  We therefore MUST be able to exceed unity.
 
You know what I'm referring to here?  That PRIZE that you're offering.   ;D   It really is forfeit Poynty Point.  You need to swallow that bitter pill. And no amount of accusations against my obvious delusion - my clear want of intelligence - nor my dubious mental stability - can detract from EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that any evaluation of my own apparently criminal character, nor my age - speech, language preference, - not even the colour of my hair, the number of my teeth, my preference for breakfast - any of these things - is IN ANY WAY RELEVANT.  Its the measurements that need to be addressed.  And the method of analysis applied to those measurement.  Which may call on an uncharacteristic professionalism from you to evaluate.  But.  There you go.  That's what's needed.
 
Unless, of course, you're happy to let the entire world know that your prize offer is simply some kind of LURE to the unsuspecting - to then POYNTIFICATE on the results and DECLARE THEN VOID.  Surely not.  :D
 
Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie

(added)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 09, 2012, 09:52:27 AM
Hello guys,

I'm just going to add this quickly - then I really need to do some work.

Poynty and others have managed to persuade some of you that our experimental evidence is 'fallacious' - I think is Poynty's new preferred term.  The thing that motivated this 'challenge' of ours is that they are all about to embark on yet another predatory excursion to hound out the claims of a certain Russian Professor who has some interesting proof of over unity.  It's done under the pretense of 'impartiality' which is absurd.  Not only does Poynty himself NOT know how to evaluate energy - but he applies a rather exotic terminology couched in equally exotic ACRONYMS - to prove his rather flawed argument - those Poynts that disperse at all angles -  'tangentially'.   I'm not sure of the right term.

 ;D

Ramset - bless him - knows this.  He is, therefore most anxious to let them adjudicate the results.  Which would be more appropriate if they - any of them - had a clue how to measure power.  But be that as it may.  More to the point is that there are some remarkable results that are evident in a certain Andrea Rossi's experimental evidence that delivers nuclear efficiencies without the toxic emissions related to the waste from a nuclear process.  IF they even addressed that much - then they'd appreciate that this extended debate over the existence or otherwise of any over unity at all - is NOW OBSOLETE.  It has, indeed, been conclusively PROVEN.  It's in the bag.  Done and delivered.  No more need to argue.  And all that is still required is the explanation for this energy - which has eluded us all for so, so long.

But rather than go there - they're still - rather obsessively - trying to quarrel with the evidence of more and more experimentalists.  Just know, if it's any comfort - that the access of this energy is now abundantly evident and that there is some very real cause for celebration.  I was rather hoping that I'd engage Poynty in a discussion about the basis of his denial of our own results.  I'm well able to argue their validity.  But he realises this and is, therefore, refusing to engage.  Sad.  In some ways.  But at least this exercise manages to highlight that rather unscientific attitude of his - where he prefers to 'bash old ladies' and allege anything that he wants with an entire freedom from the facts at issue.

I have still to address the response from Harti and from Steven E Jones.  Both are more disposed to accreditation.  I'll have to thrash out the terms though as Harti's requirement is not so much for COP>1 as it is for perpetual motion.  I'm a little concerned that perpetual motion is way outside our own claims.  But I'll get there.  It's important to establish the basis of proof - as it is to establish the measurements that are evaluated in that proof.  And Steven E Jones has expressed some real interest.  I'll need to find out on what basis.

I'll get back here.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Corrected.  'tangenitally' to 'tangentially'
GOLLY
 :o


 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on January 09, 2012, 11:25:46 AM
Unbelievable, attacking Ramset someone who has always done his very best to help anybody trying to develop free energy, 
he is truly a hero of the free energy community and has been known for his efforts for many years.

Rosie it is no surprise to me that you are still playing the blame game and the conspiracy theory card,
yes it gets you noticed and really that's all you seem to be interested in when it comes to your claims
and before you write me a long boring post the evidence is obvious for all to see by looking at your previous posts.

All your claims over the years have resulted in not one person on this forum being able to replicate your claims, including members on here that come to your defence.

Rosie's simple rule is this if you say her device doesn't work, then you will be attacked and accused of being in a conspiracy
and the reason why Rosie doesn't admit her mistakes and work with good people to develop a real free energy device is a sad state of affairs, because when she's not talking about her own claims she can make a positive contribution to this community
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 09, 2012, 03:09:25 PM
Hi guys,

I'm delighted to see that Poynty Point has put our papers up for view.  HOW DOES HE DO THAT?  Anyway - for now, for those who want to read those papers - here's the link.  Hopefully I've done this right.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766)

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767)

Its he second paper that covers the thesis.  The first is the experimental evidence.  It seems that exnihiloest has this to say about the paper -
 
The power provided by the function generator can't be neglected because the source impedence of a mosfet is much lower than the gate impedence. -
- Then I read: "The offset of the function generator was set to its extreme negative limit".  This means that the function generator provides continuous current and therefore extra energy that was not taken into account.  These papers make no sense, really a "fantasy world".

He's wrong.  We have measured the energy coming from the functions generator and factored that into our analysis.  It's clearly referenced in that same paper.  Can he read?  Anyway.  It makes not a blind bit of difference to our results.  They still show infinite COP.  Go figger.

Delighted with this development.  I had no idea one could make a file available to the public like this.  Thank you Poynty Point.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I've been trying to clean this up. That 'Bold' button screws up the presentation.  Is Harti aware of this?
Anyway it's the best I can do at editing this.

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 10, 2012, 07:10:24 AM
Hello Guys,

This is mainly for Harti, Poynty and Steve. Just a little bit more on the 'challenge'.  As you are now able to reference the paper directly - here is what the experiments prove.

That more energy is returned to the battery than was first delivered by the battery.  This is evident in the computation of wattage based on vi dt - the product of which results in a negative wattage.  Very carefully measured, using broadband oscilloscopes and cross checked through data dumps  and spreadsheet analyses from those scopes. 

This points to an alternate supply of energy from the battery itself.  Obviously.  Else the amount of energy returned should be equivalent to the that supplied - at best.  Now - it can be argued that the energy is coming from ground.  Or, alternatively, that the energy is coming from the function generator.  We disprove this by the following.  The function generator can be replaced with a 555 switch.  It gives us an equivalent result - STILL THAT NEGATIVE PRODUCT - but we're now restricted to the 'range' of potentials that we can test.  Which is why we continue using the function generator.  We also point to the fact that there can be no interference from GROUND - as the Tektronix Oscilloscope HAS NO GROUND and it gives PRECISELY the same values as our LE CROY.  And IF the energy is coming from the signal itself - which is from whatever it is that is powering the switch - then that is simply 'factored' into our equations as a power source.  And what it shows is that the amount of energy that is delivered in that signal - DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT HUGE SURPLUS OF ENERGY DELIVERED BACK TO THE BATTERY.  Indeed - it is the smallest fraction of the energy that we measure.

Therefore can we conclude that there is unequivocal proof of a source of energy that is available to that circuit that does not come from the battery supply.

That the material of current must have a charge to account for it's justification through those circuit components which would otherwise be prevented under usual open circuit conditions.  Under usual circuit conditions - when it's opened - then the battery is NOT able to deliver any energy.  Yet, here we have proof that DESPITE the switch being open - the circuit is able to generate STRONG current flows in both directions through that circuit.

Therefore we can conclude that current itself has a charge that determines its justification or path through a circuit.

Then we prove that with adjustments to the duty cycle and to the frequencies - we can vary that oscillation to produce a continuous current - an oscillation that can take water to boil - and an oscillation that has the potential to act as a booster converter - ALL resulting in that zero discharge of energy from the battery supply.

Therefore we can conclude that the technology has a potential to deliver low and high energies as required and depending on those settings.

The second paper points to the thesis.  It is argued that provided one attributes a material property of a magnetic dipole - to a magnetic field - then it can entirely account for this oscillation and for the paths that are evident in the flow of current.  Therefore current flow may have a magnetic property that has not been entirely factored into the standard model.  Without this theorised imposition of the particle and it's bipolar potential - then there is no explanation within the standard model.  And all we use are Faraday's Lines of Force.  In short - we argue that magnetic fields assemble in lines of force.  They are responsible for binding matter - or ATOMS - into their coalesced structures.  When they are open they can reassemble as open lines of force which would result in some evident 'charge' justification measured as voltage imbalance.  Or they can simply degrade or decay into a chaotic condition - in which case they can be measured as heat.  Or INDEED.  In the electric application of this - then we get evidence of BOTH voltage imbalance from some of those binding fields - AND heat from some of those fields when they are no longer in a field condition.  Which then compromises the 'bound' condition of coalesced matter.

Then we conclude with a discursive analysis where we point to the fact that all manifest 'sparks' 'fire' and 'flame' are simply these fields in their chaotic condition when they're no longer in their invisible field condition.  And being removed from their binding condition - they immediately compromise the bound condition of that material.  Now.  Being invisible is simply being 'out' of the range of detection of light.  Therefore it is possible that their velocity in a field condition exceeds light speed.  By the same token the 'sparks' and 'fire' and 'flame' are visible to light.  Therefore in the same way - their chaotic condition must be at a velocity that is slow enough for light to interact.  Also.  The sparks, fire and flame can be measured as heat.  Therefore through an extension of this logic - the particles themselves are as hot and as slow and as visible in a chaotic state, as they were previously cold and fast and invisible in their field condition.  Therefore - if these two states are just two aspects of the same particle - then this may, indeed, be the source of that electric energy that has eluded definition all these centuries.

BACK TO THE CHALLENGE

Clearly there are no members who are into theory.  So.  Let's leave that aside.  I put it to Poynty and Steve Jones and Harti - that not only have we proved that it is relatively easy to EXCEED unity constraints - but that current itself comprises this elusive 'dark matter' particle that all have been hunting for.  Surely that merits investigation?   And surely that merits our claims for their prizes?  After all.  We are using ABSOLUTELY STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS AND IMPECCABLE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 10, 2012, 07:34:51 AM
And by the way - Poynty Point. 

You've rather underestimated the number of readers on my blog.  They far exceed the number on your own - but are not as high as Harti's forum.  Hopefully, as time goes by, that will change.  Every month increases those numbers.  I've been seriously tempted to go the route of capitalising on this - but will resist it as long as I can.

Wake up Poynty Point.  It's only YOU and your dogs who insist that we have NOTHING.  Just evaluate the evidence, for God's sake - and stick to the topic.  And make public your conditions for that prize you're flaunting.  We're determined that if its OVER UNITY you want to prove - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  We've got all the proof that you need.  And we'd rather enjoy claiming that prize.  The truth is that you actually need look no further than Rossi's technology.  I see you're avoiding mention of that like the plague.  It's that very big ELEPHANT sitting full frontal in your forum.  You'll have to acknowledge it eventually.  THEN?  What will you do?  My guess is that it'll put paid to your 'raison d'etre' and likely compromise your livelihood. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 10, 2012, 03:59:33 PM
My dear Chet,

If, as you claim - you did not provide that link - then - indeed - I, and one or two members who alerted me to it - must be entirely deluded.  Frankly I'm inclined to believe that you may have 'inadvertently' posted it.  Either way - it did not 'stop the world from spinning'.  And I was mildly amused at best because that - like so many other representations about me are absurd and rather comical.  You probably have seen them on that 'hate blog' dedicated to me.  But don't let that monopolise your attention.  More relevant to the issue are those many other points that I raised.  I wonder if I can impose on you to comment

It is a fact that we have proved that electric current has a dual charge potential.  It is a fact that we have measured infinite COP.  It is a fact that we have taken water to boil at NO MEASURED COST OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY.  It is a fact that these results were required and predicted in terms of a magnetic field model.  It is a fact, therefore, that we qualify for Poynty's over unity prize.  And it is also a FACT that Poynty has NOT  responded to our challenge for his prize.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps you can enlighten us.  You're knee deep in there.

It is also a FACT that ALL these forums are very carefully NOT talking about Rossi's technology which, frankly outperforms ALL our claims.  Again.  I wonder why that is?

Do advise us.  You really need to - if we're to engage in all this apparent enthusiasm for over unity results.  It would be very sad to learn that you never reference our own work because Poynty and Harvey have advised you all that it doesn't work. 

Regards
Rosemary


And Chet - please don't overlook this post of mine.  We're looking for some answers here.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2012, 08:48:07 PM
Hello Poynty Point,

Regarding your claim that our measurements are wrong.  Not sure where?  Could you please point out where, in our paper, our protocols deviate from standard protocols.
You are quite aware of the analysis I performed, and the 42 page document that was posted. Here is a link again to that document:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=5403

If you can not open pdf files, I would strongly encourage you to join the 20th century and update your computer so that it will do so. Failing that, have someone print it out for your reading pleasure. I would urge you to study it well, as it explains all or most of your errors.

Quote
I can assure you that our paper has been vetted by some rather weighty academics...
I find this to be extremely unlikely. Post their names and credentials (I know you'll say they'd rather not). If they are indeed real academics, then they ought to join you in that power measurement 101 course I recommended you attend.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 10, 2012, 08:52:28 PM
Hello again Poynty.

I really would rather you vet our paper and not your own.  It would be rather more appropriate.  But you're right.  I have NOT read your paper and nor will I.  I can barely understand your rather exotic terminologies.  And properly and correctly you need to REPLICATE our experiment OR JUST COME AND LOOK AT A DEMONSTRATION. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I might add that I find it EXTRAORDINARY that you can determine any test from NOTHING more than your opinion.  Science, may I remind you, is determined by experimental evidence.  And that evidence has been detailed in our paper.  IF you find something lacking - then ASK.  Dear God.  You're meant to be doing a sincere evaluation of a claim for your unity prize.  And instead of addressing the issue you're rabbiting on about your opinions.  We know them.  All.  Rather too well.  Perhaps we can impose on you to check out the ACTUAL tests and NOT your assumptions about those tests.  And INDEED.  I have had some very flattering comments on those papers. 

Regards, again,
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: david lambright on January 10, 2012, 09:04:27 PM
bravo rose!, great work. i believe that even with absolute PROOF, there will be those who refuse to see it. as for me, i believe in you. i KNOW your work is real, and verified. looking forward to hear more from you. again, great work, stay in touch.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 10, 2012, 09:09:31 PM
bravo rose!, great work. i believe that even with absolute PROOF, there will be those who refuse to see it. as for me, i believe in you. i KNOW your work is real, and verified. looking forward to hear more from you. again, great work, stay in touch.

Thank you David.  I would LOVE to take full credit for this work.  But it really IS shared with the collaborators.  But I must admit.  I'm rather proud of those efforts of ours.

Take care
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2012, 09:31:38 PM
Hello again Poynty.

I have NOT read your paper and nor will I.

Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 10, 2012, 09:43:53 PM
Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

Are you speaking to the gallery here Poynty Point?  Are you hoping that those readers of this thread will be satisfied that there isn't some rather FRANTIC requirement on your part to DENY the evidence in the FACE OF THAT EVIDENCE?  Because, sadly, I would need to disabuse you.  We have experimental evidence that comprehensively blows the unity barrier into the DARK AGES - and it is presented with the niceties of measurement that cannot be REFUTED - based as it is on the most exceptional measuring equipment.  And that - properly - means that we are over qualified to claim your prize.

Now.  Let me presume to remind YOU about the status quo.  YOU HAVE NEVER REPLICATED OUR EXPERIMENT OTHER THAN ON A SIMULATION PROGRAM.  YOU THEN PROCEEDED TO FUDGE THOSE RESULTS IN A SPURIOUS EFFORT TO DENY THE EVIDENCE.  Your anxiety was to ASSURE ALL AND SUNDRY that there were no beneficial results.  You then presumed to attempt to ruin my reputation by widely advising all and sundry that I am half mad - and a fraud.  And RIGHT NOW you are most anxious to assure our members that there is NO MERIT in our papers.  I wonder at this excessive zeal.  Under usual circumstances any efforts - such as ours - to carefully measure and record a series of anomalous test results - would solicit NOTHING but praise.  Instead of which you appear to be trying to bury both our work and my good name - under a welter of what are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT personal attacks.  At the risk of misquoting our immortal Bard - 'something smells in the state of Denmark'.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 10, 2012, 10:13:33 PM
May I add - that these malicious efforts of yours speak for themselves.  It is INAPPROPRIATE Poynt.99 Recurring.  Utterly and completely inappropriate.  For some reason you aren't aware of this.  You seem to think that you lend credence to your damning assessment of my abilities - by simply spreading your opinion - like a kind of contagious disease.  The public are considerably more discerning.  And while you so urgently need to advise all and sundry that I'm rather ignorant and decidedly intellectually challenged - there is that in our work that belies this.  Which you know only too well.  All the more reason NOT to address the FACTS in that paper - but to try and keep the attention focused on your OPINIONS related to tests that you have NEVER DONE.

Extraordinary.  It's a crass stupidity to assume that public opinion can be manipulated.  It's that thing about the con artist.  You can fool some of the people some of the time - and so on.  But NOT ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.  And that time has now come Poynty Point.  Long over due.  But you'll need to work hard to deny the claims in that paper.  I'm sure it'll challenge your best efforts.  But LET'S SEE THEM.  Don't duck behind that ABSURD sense of moral indignation.  You really DO NOT OCCUPY THE MORAL HIGH GROUND HERE.  Just DEAL WITH THOSE CLAIMS AND THE THESIS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS.  JUST KEEP TO THE POYNT.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 11, 2012, 07:38:37 AM
Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

I see my previous challenge has STILL not solicited an appropriate response.  Dear Poynty Point.  Kindly evaluate our paper that deals with the experimental evidence of over unity.  IF YOU FIND ANYTHING AT ALL THAT MAY BE WRONG - THEN LET US KNOW.  THEN.  When we've established the protocols related to these measurements as required - we'll be in some position to evaluate those results.

THEN.  We would be glad to orchestrate some means by which you can attend a demonstration of the working device to evaluate our claim as it relates to those results.

DO LET US KNOW.  Unless you're prepared to acknowledge that your rather well flaunted opinion about me somehow disqualifies me and my collaborators from challenging you for your prize.  Which is hardly science.  That's more in the nature of a witch hunt.  May I remind you - that while I, myself, am not credentialed - those collaborators - to a man - are very well qualified - one having an honours degree and the other a masters degree.  And they ALL concur that those results are as detailed in those papers.  It's NOT exclusively my claim.  It is a collaborative effort.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 11, 2012, 03:14:53 PM
I see my previous challenge has STILL not solicited an appropriate response.  Dear Poynty Point.  Kindly evaluate our paper that deals with the experimental evidence of over unity.  IF YOU FIND ANYTHING AT ALL THAT MAY BE WRONG - THEN LET US KNOW.

Dear three readers of this thread,

Kindly take Rosemary by the hand and please explain to her that all the answers she seeks regarding the problems in her paper and experimental results can be found in this document.

Thank you.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 11, 2012, 04:13:44 PM
Dear three readers of this thread,

Kindly take Rosemary by the hand and please explain to her that all the answers she seeks regarding the problems in her paper and experimental results can be found in this document.

Thank you.

.99

Golly Ponty.  You really need to brush up on your math.  Check with Harti.  I think there are well in excess of 800 hits per day here.  As ever, you're clearly hoping against hope that no-one finds this subject intriguing.  And that rather half starved little hope is kept alive, because you're also hoping that no-one will discover you're duplicitous intentions regarding that prize you offer. 

I'm afraid that - unless you allow our challenge for this then there is the very real likelihood that you'll lose all credibility as a 'promoter of clean green' - alternate energy - or even over unity.  And certainly no-one is likely to trust your intentions on this subject again.  They may conclude that you're actively working against any proofs of this.  AND.  That would be a shame.  It would likely wreck any residual credibility and with it - any residual respect that they may have for you.

Now.  Since you're patently reluctant to make public those 'objections' of yours as they relate to our tests - let me HIGHLIGHT the more exotic of those sad little arguments.  Starting with the POSITION OF THE PROBE. :o   There is NO QUESTION that if, INDEED, we reversed our probe positions - then we would measure 'under unity'.  The problem, unfortunately, is that it would be INCORRECT to do so.  You see this I trust. Science has well established protocols as to where the probes must be positioned.  You cannot whimsically propose to vary this, in the same way as you whimsically vary the very terms of power analysis in that PIN POUT nonsense.  There are already established protocols.  And they've been implemented by far better minds than either you or I can bring to the table.  :o

I would strongly recommend that you simply stick to  - adhere to - in fact, 'cling onto for dear life' - the already well established conventions when it comes to the assessment of power.  Golly.  Else we could allow every Tom, Dick or Poynty - to determine the very basis of physics when they have, very evidentially, very little knowledge of it.  And on these forums Poynty Point?  I would suggest that you've been going off at a tangent - which explains that curious 'avatar' of yours.  I just do not understand how you've got away with it for so long.  Why it is that no-one has challenged you on this?  Because to any academic or qualified engineer - it is - at best, confused - utterly illogical - and shows a remarkable level of ignorance about the fundamental principles related to the computation of power.  But - you are nevertheless CORRECT.  If we were to reverse those probes - then we WOULD INDEED - reverse our results. 

Now.  Here's what I propose.  Spare us the public evaluation of your power analysis - based as it is on those utterly illogical arguments - and SIMPLY EVALUATE THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS APPLIED.  Then move on from there.  It would have the very real merit of being appropriate.  You see this I trust.  It's OUR claim that needs to be evaluated.  NOT YOURS.  And we are best qualified to represent our own argument. Unlike you - our collaborators are well versed in power analysis.  And, also unlike you, they are far better qualified.  I am, therefore, inclined to rest on their advices, and on the advices of some renowned academics - when it comes to an evaluation of power.  It's not exactly an 'art in the making'.  It's well established.  Well known.  And ENTIRELY LOGICAL.  I'm not sure that you're qualified to simply recommend that we turn the measurement of electric energy upside down.
 
NOW.  I appreciate that you DARE not expose the grounds for your objections to our claim.  it would require an exposure of your rather quixotic arguments.  But here's a way around the impasse.  Just move on to our own arguments that form the basis of our claim for that prize.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  Changed 'of' to 'on'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on January 11, 2012, 04:22:51 PM
 You must have missed my post, not surprising with your track record on interpretation of information, so here it is again

Unbelievable, attacking Ramset someone who has always done his very best to help anybody trying to develop free energy, 
he is truly a hero of the free energy community and has been known for his efforts for many years.

Rosie it is no surprise to me that you are still playing the blame game and the conspiracy theory card,
yes it gets you noticed and really that's all you seem to be interested in when it comes to your claims
and before you write me a long boring post the evidence is obvious for all to see by looking at your previous posts.

All your claims over the years have resulted in not one person on this forum being able to replicate your claims, including members on here that come to your defence.

Rosie's simple rule is this if you say her device doesn't work, then you will be attacked and accused of being in a conspiracy
and the reason why Rosie doesn't admit her mistakes and work with good people to develop a real free energy device is a sad state of affairs, because when she's not talking about her own claims she can make a positive contribution to this community   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 12, 2012, 02:39:44 AM
Guys,

It seems that Poynty Point is refuting our claim based on the pretext of his own analysis of this.  Kindly note.  He has NEVER replicated our experiment.  His earlier work on this was confined to a simulation of the waveform where he showed equivalent results.  He then - rather lamely - argued against those very results by stating that our probes should be reversed to get a true value.  This is INCORRECT and flies in the face of the established protocols for the measure of electric energy. 

My argument is that he should evaluate our claim in the context of standard measurement protocols.  That, after all, has been a science that has been very precisely defined by very prestigious scientists EVERYWHERE.  You cannot simply recommend the reversal of the probes and then seriously expect to extrapolate either the correct data or the correct analysis applied to that data.  And those terms of his.  PIN AND POUT.  They are essentially FLAWED.  Our entire argument is based on the evidence that the energy on our circuit is from what he calls POUT.  Which, clearly is PIN - if, indeed, our claim is valid.  The claim itself - is DENIED by those rather exotic definitions of his, that he's tried to impose on everyone here.  I assure you that there are no academic electrical engineers who would adopt those 'quixotic' terminologies.  And the pity of it is that the contributing members here seem to unaware of this fact.

But the truth is hidden even deeper than this facile rejection of the evidence.  The most of the forum members have no idea that they're being led by the nose.  Nor do they know that this unity barrier that is now comprehensively BROKEN has - in fact - been comprehensively broken ALL OVER THE PLACE.  We do NOT have a monopoly on it.  Where we DO have considerable authority is that we took the trouble to write this down in a format that is required by any reviewed journal.  And those measurements are impeccable - as they're made by top of the range equipment.  They cannot, therefore, be discounted on the basis of an inherent flaw in the extrapolation of that data.

And proof of this agenda is right here in this - our challenge to Poynty.  IF indeed, he refuses to evaluate our evidence - then I'm afraid he would need to justify his reasons for this.  And that would require him to DETAIL THOSE MEASUREMENTS THAT HE CLAIMS ARE ERRONEOUS.  If he does not engage - it is because he DARE NOT.  Right now he is trying to dismiss the claims based on his OWN replication.  That's irrelevant.  His tests are not OUR CLAIM.  We take the test to levels where we can boil water.  Indeed, we can even exceed that much energy - but for very short periods as the transistors COOK.  And all this with the measurement of current flows that absolutely DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH HUGE ENERGIES.  A simulation program will never show this.

In order to justify his rather RUDE dismissal - he also goes to some considerable pains to assure you all that - I am FANTASIZING.  IF, I am, IF all this is the product of my imagination - IF it's some kind of reckless claim based on an improbable DREAM - then in my defense.  I share that dream - that fantasy - with six qualified electrical engineers and over 100 engineers of varying skills who have either seen or replicated this - and, indeed, with our LeCroy and Tektronix oscilloscopes that keep on keeping on showing precisely these results.  We are all suffering from the very same delusion. 

I put it to you that Poynty relies on the wide dismissal of the very foundation to our claim - precisely because he CANNOT REFUTE THE CLAIM.  And he will beg off any TRUE evaluation of this because if he did - then he would have to acknowledge over unity.  Which is something that he will NEVER do.  And he also, therefore needs to assure all and sundry that I am variously MAD - or delusional - ignorant - and unschooled.  I don't care to comment.  But he would also then have to assure you that so is everyone else associated with this paper.  He has also tried to recommend that the paper is TO BE ENJOYED FOR ITS COMIC VALUE.  Again I cannot comment.  But in due course, and with their permission, I will schedule the names of those academics from international and famous academies - who have commended that paper on the basis of its clarity and who have, to a man, recommended publication.  It's a short list, thus far - barely a handful.  But that list is growing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited.  Change 'who' to 'that'.

 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 12, 2012, 05:02:57 AM
Dear Harti and Seven E Jones and guys,

I think my arguments have now put Poynt's objections to bed.  He'll either ignore these posts of mine or attempt - yet again - to scoff them.  What he will NEVER DO is actually evaluate the experiments themselves.  Whatever way he jumps he's shown a partiality that is entirely unprofessional.  And we now have clear and public evidence of a reluctance to accredit these test results - NOT because he CAN disprove them - but because he CANNOT.  I would therefore appeal to you all to discount Poynty's comments on any tests by anyone at all that were done before and after this challenge of ours.  They are not based on scientific assessments EVER.  They're based on DENIAL for the sake of DENIAL.

Now onto Harti and to Steven E Jones.  Harti's qualifications for testing this apparatus include the need to test this continually over the duration of 3 months - among other things.  He's entitled to nominate his terms but I would appeal to him that - at the basis of his 'test criteria' is the requirement for - not over unity - but perpetual motion.  Not sure that this point is relevant but most of the members here are interested in motorised energy.  Very difficult to measure.  Doable - but difficult.  It would, perhaps, be more reasonable to establish this alternate proposal as a basis of proof.  Evaluate a battery's performance in terms of its watt hour rating.  Then apply that battery to the over unity test.  When the amount of energy dissipated exceeds that watt hour rating - then over unity is evident.  That may be considered as more 'fair'.  And subject to this minor variation to his terms and conditions, then we can certainly do those tests and conclude them in a time that is more manageable.

We have a problem though with the 'fine tuning required for these tests.   It really does require those sophisticated instruments.  I trust to Harti's sincerity in finding these results.  But provided he can get access to this equipment he will not be able to precisely replicate our settings.  Therefore there will be no point in sending him our apparatus.  Can you, Harti - please propose a solution.  Is there a way you can access broadband oscilloscopes?  Please let me know.  Perhaps with a bit of persuasion you can get a supplier to loan one for the duration required.  If not, then I'll certainly try and rally.

Then for Steven.  I get it that you're knee deep in tests related to our Serbian (is it?) - Professor.  Let me know what time you have available for our own tests.  And, more to the point, please advise us on your evaluation of our measurement protocols.  We've still to establish that as the basis of the tests.  We've forwarded our papers to you.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on January 12, 2012, 12:13:34 PM

Now onto Harti and to Steven E Jones.  Harti's qualifications for testing this apparatus include the need to test this continually over the duration of 3 months - among other things.  He's entitled to nominate his terms but I would appeal to him that - at the basis of his 'test criteria' is the requirement for - not over unity - but perpetual motion.

To suggest that something that ran for three months could be classed as perpetual motion is ridiculous  ::) but typical of your flawed logic, you expect people to change everything to fit your criteria it's the same with your measuring.
As usual when you don't get your own way or you don't like what you hear it is always somebody else's fault.

If ther had been some successfull replications from members on this site then maybe some of your arguments might be worth consideration, but in all the years that you have been making these claims not one person here has ever successfully matched your claims. And you expect others to change their rules of entry and testing to suits your agenda  ::)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 12, 2012, 08:46:44 PM
The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component.  ;)

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on January 13, 2012, 02:17:44 AM
Hi Rosemary,
I have scanned now your 2 PDF files
and can not find any measurement results of the input power into the
Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 from the grid.

So these measurements are still missing and you certainly need to
add them to your other measurements and also use noninductive shunts.
Not these high inductance wire shunts !

As long as these measurements are not provided, it could all also be measurement
errors, cause you don´t know, how much power the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324
puts into the circuit.

Also it would be very wise to "unground" the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324,
so there will be no shielding ground current loops available, that could add power
from the shielding case ground currents.

So I would urge you to finally just do a circuit with a negative bias voltage onto the  Mosfets
and use a tap switch to a higher voltage spike to start the oscillation
and thus remove the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 completely from the circuit.

Also as this whole unit inclusive batteries is over 20 Kg it can not apply for the overunity prize.
See the OU prize conditions again.

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on January 13, 2012, 02:26:46 AM
P.S: Rosemary,
how do we know, that your function generator is not broken and it will
put all the additional power into the circuit?

If you don´t use a digital
kill-a-watt type  digital power meter to the measure the input power
you really can´t say anything and
it also might have ground current loops from the multiple ground lines
in the circuit  and scope probe and function generator grounds interferring ?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 03:19:44 AM
There you go Poynty Point

Isn't this so much better than simply insulting a challenger for your prize in your efforts to deny them this?  Well done.  And well done for referencing the ONLY probe positioning in your confusing set of schematics that is readable. 

 ;D

Now.  Let's reference that schematic and your manifest confusions related to this.

The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component.  ;)

.99

You show the simple configuration of a circuit that applies a DIRECT CURRENT to a load with the bias of the probes CORRECTLY ILLUSTRATED.  So far so good.  NEXT. You establish the current flow having a NEGATIVE VALUE.  This is INCORRECT.  Let me see if I can explain this.

In order to determine the amount of power that is dissipated at the load and delivered by the battery - both - one first needs to determine the RATE OF CURRENT FLOW.  To find this number - this 'rate of flow' a Mr Ohm determined that you can take the applied voltage from the source and divide it by the resistive value of the load itself.  Then.  Then one can PREDICT that the amount of current that flows from that battery will be something less than the amount of voltage potential at the battery supply source.  And the actual wattage is then a product of this voltage x that current.  Since the flow of current is IN THIS INSTANCE coming exclusively from the battery then correctly the product is POSITIVE.

NOW.  In order to CHECK that value - or to determine it MORE ACCURATELY - then one can simply place the probes across the load resistor and measure the voltage across that and divide that by the resistive value of the load.  This will also give you the rate of current flow, possibly more accurately.  But to measure a potential difference across that resistor with a second probe and at the same time as one measures the voltage across the battery then one would need to position the probes as you have shown.  ELSE YOU WILL NOT SEE ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  The fact that it shows a negative potential is IRRELEVANT.  That negative voltage is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT THAT IS FLOWING THROUGH THE CIRCUIT.  NOR DOES IT INDICATE THE POLARITY OR JUSTIFICATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW. Under closed conditions the ONLY current flowing through the circuit is FROM THE BATTERY.

I am not sure what you're trying to point to.  But I assure you that it is fair and reasonable to determine that the flow of current is determined by the potential difference at the battery and convention has ALWAYS required that to be represented as a positive current flow.  I think, if ANYTHING you are trying to lend some credence to the entirely fallacious argument that - because one measures a negative voltage across the load resistor then the current flow must be negative.  It may be negative - provided ONLY that this potential difference can generate back or 'counter' electromotive force (CEMF).  But to do this the circuit would first need to be OPEN.  As represented - and as you've shown it - that BATTERY is the sole source of power.  And it CANNOT magically simply return energy to itself or generate a negative current flow.

I wonder if we can  refer  - NOT so much to your own analysis - but to our paper.  It has the merit of being more conventionally dependable.  Please advise us where you have objections to our applied protocols.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Added this for clarification.
with a second probe and at the same time as one measures the voltage across the battery
and this
NOR DOES IT INDICATE THE POLARITY OR JUSTIFICATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 03:47:10 AM
Dear Harti,

Thank you for getting back to me.  And compliments of the season.  I trust you had a good holiday.


I have scanned now your 2 PDF files
and can not find any measurement results of the input power into the
Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 from the grid.
If I understand this correctly you're asking where we measured the power FROM the generator in the application of that signal at the transistors.  If this is right we explained this in the paper.  We measured the amount of power and found it to not only be negligible but to have a negative value in relation to the supply.  Therefore it would served to DEPLETE rather than to ADD to the energy coming from the battery.  In any event the current value is that negligible that it can be comfortably factored into the margins for error. 

So these measurements are still missing and you certainly need to
add them to your other measurements and also use noninductive shunts.
Not these high inductance wire shunts !
We used high wattage resistors PRECISELY because we were generating HIGH CURRENT.  No doubt it would be preferred to use those highly calibrated shunt resistors but, unfortunately, they were and are outside our budget.  HOWEVER - the problems associated with the small inductances on those resistors are only relevant if our measurements of energy are marginal.  This is not the case in any of the examples included in that paper. 

As long as these measurements are not provided, it could all also be measurement
errors, cause you don´t know, how much power the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324
puts into the circuit.
Margins for error has been factored in and most certainly IS referenced in that paper.

Also it would be very wise to "unground" the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324,
so there will be no shielding ground current loops available, that could add power
from the shielding case ground currents.
We tested this on a 555 switch.  Reference again in that paper.  The results are the same.  And our results were measured using a Tektronix oscilloscope meter in conjunction with the LeCroy.  They give precisely equivalent results.  The Tektronix is not grounded.  Therefore the LeCroy results are confirmed not be influenced by ground.  We only used the LeCroy screen downloads for the paper because they are clearer and gives a fuller account of the circuit values.

So I would urge you to finally just do a circuit with a negative bias voltage onto the  Mosfets
and use a tap switch to a higher voltage spike to start the oscillation
and thus remove the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 completely from the circuit.
We have done this on independent tests.  I am more than happy to send you the downloads.  The problem is that while this is your requirement it is not that of the electrical engineers whom we consulted.  It's difficult to conform to everyone's requirements Harti.  And our own tests needed to conform to the requirements of those experts.

Also as this whole unit inclusive batteries is over 20 Kg it can not apply for the overunity prize.
See the OU prize conditions again.
I read this.  There may be a way around it as there are some tests that can be managed with less applied voltage.  This can still be discussed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 03:54:53 AM
Regarding this post script

P.S: Rosemary,
how do we know, that your function generator is not broken and it will
put all the additional power into the circuit?
Because we have used no less than 4 - interchangeably - and because all 4 are calibrated.

If you don´t use a digital
kill-a-watt type  digital power meter to the measure the input power
you really can´t say anything and
I think that both LeCroy and Tektronix would claim CONSIDERABLY greater accuracy than the accuracies provided by a kill-a-watt digital power meter - with respect. 

it also might have ground current loops from the multiple ground lines
in the circuit  and scope probe and function generator grounds interferring ?
Not sure what you're referring to here.  The functions generator?  Or the oscilloscopes?  Either way - I addressed these concerns in our previous correspondence.

Again,
Regards,

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 13, 2012, 05:38:00 AM
Dear three readers of this thread,

I sincerely hope Rosemary's analysis of my last post is not taken seriously. It's a shame when even Ohm's law can be so carelessly butchered.

Evidently, Rosemary has an innate ability to severely FUBAR even the most incredibly simple and clear circuit.  :-\

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 05:45:16 AM
Dear three readers of this thread,

I sincerely hope Rosemary's analysis of my last post is not taken seriously. It's a shame when even Ohm's law can be so carelessly butchered.

Evidently, Rosemary has an innate ability to severely FUBAR even the most incredibly simple and clear circuit.  :-\

.99

Dear Poynty Point,

I've already explained this.  Harti's system here allows for the actual rate of hits on this and any thread.  Check it out sometime.  Your math is appalling. 

THEN.  May I again ask you to 'stick to the point'.  IF you find that there's something I have written that is WRONG - you really need to point out WHERE.  Else we - all of us who read here - will simply assume that you're trying to 'duck the issue'.  Possibly you remember that 'fooling the people all the time' thing?  It still applies.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 13, 2012, 05:46:42 AM
I wonder if we can  refer  - NOT so much to your own analysis - but to our paper.

How the hell do you expect anyone to have a productive discussion with you about your paper, circuit and test results, when quite obviously (based on your analysis of my simple circuit) you don't even have a solid grasp of Ohm's law?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 05:49:11 AM
Dear Poynty Point,

How the hell do you expect anyone to have a productive discussion with you about your paper, circuit and test results, when quite obviously (based on your analysis of my simple circuit) you don't even have a solid grasp of Ohm's law?

.99

You ALLEGE that I do not have a solid grasp of Ohm's Law.  I PROVE that you do not have a solid grasp of power computation.  I challenge you to PROVE your point.  We're all rather tired of your allegations.

Again,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 12:34:51 PM
Guys,

I've split this into two posts because the following is seriously long.  But here are the niceties of the argument - for those who are interested.

Poynty is proposing to use terms such as POUT AND PIN.  "P" as used  to represent power in the context of the energy moving OUT AND IN to a circuit.  Now.  Let's go over the various properties that are required for the measure of power.

In analysing the amount of energy delivered by a supply source, one first needs to establish the amount of potential difference available at that source.  This is to get some measure of the 'force', so to speak, of the energy available to be transferred.  This potential difference is measured as voltage.  Then one needs to establish the 'rate' at which this potential difference is transferred.  That's a measure of the current flow.  And, as mentioned in my previous post,  the rate of current flow - in turn - is determined by the Ohms value of resistance in the path of that potential difference.  There are factors that vary this - related to the inductance on the circuit and to speed of applied switching frequencies.  But we're here dealing with his schematic represented in his earlier post.  No switches.  Not complexities.  Therefore V (source voltage) over the Ohms value of the resistor determines I (that rate of current flow).  Technically therefore - this product also  represents the measure of energy flowing through the circuit every second.  And this is represented as Wattage.  The calculation of power - out or in - is then the product of that instantaneous wattage over time which is the power delivered by that system.  And because time is now factored in then and that number is represented as JOULES. 

Time out of mind - in this extraordinary analysis applied to his simulation programs - and in EVERY SINGLE COMPUTATION that he has ever attempted in his analysis of this and any circuitry - he then detours into a major departure from the conventional measurement practices.  He proposes the terms POUT (POWER OUT) AND PIN (POWER IN) and proceeds to represent that number as WATTAGE.  Which is a horribly flawed and a rather abused misuse of the term power.  POWER IS NOT WATTAGE.  So WHY does he use the term POUT or PIN or anything like this - AT ALL -  when WOUT - OR WIN - if anything - would be more appropriate?  And even that is debatable.  But I'll get there.  For now, just know that these terms have little - if any relevance to their use as determined by ALL standard or conventional terminologies.  His use of them - his invention of these terms POUT AND PIN are only a reflection of his own rather eccentric misunderstandings of the term power.  It has absolutely no support, whatsoever. in any conventional analysis.  Power is ALWAYS REPRESENTED AS JOULES which is vi dt.  Else it's NOT POWER.  It's WATTAGE - or vi.

NOW.  To that OUT AND IN nonsense.  The energy delivered by the battery is expected to deplete the amount of potential difference at that battery supply source.   It can, indeed, be argued that it comes out of that supply source.  BUT.  By the same token another reader can determine that actually he means IN - as the energy delivered INTO the circuit.  And then.  What comes OUT of the circuit as work - must be the energy that was first put IN?  You see the problem I trust?  It is TOO AMBIGUOUS a reference to justify any kind of classical endorsement. EVER.  Science has a proud tradition of clarity.  While there are those who prefer to be obtuse in the forlorn hopes of thereby sounding clever, it is not a practice that our scientists will indulge.  They need PERFECT CLARITY.  While one can, with the best will in the world - recommend any variations to our standard references - it must first be understood that those variations will clarify - rather than confuse - our argument.  When and if they simply cloud the issue - when they befuddle clear science with ambiguities and pretentious muddled thinking  - then they're better avoided like the plague.  There is nothing wrong with standard terminologies.  Energy is delivered by a supply source and it is dissipated over a circuit.  It's that simple.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 12:40:09 PM
This is the second part of that argument.

Now.  Back to the determination of the current that flows as a result of potential difference  as it applies - to his circuit schematic.  It is understood that current from a battery supply MUST be first sourced from the potential difference at that battery supply.   It is - self evidently - the SOURCE of the energy that can then be applied to the workstation of the circuit.  Now here's the thing.  The voltage or potential difference that is measured across that work station - that resistor - is transferred - somehow from the battery to that circuit component during the flow of current.  This is standard.  But in that transfer the voltage across that workstation is always in ANTI POLARITY OR ANTI PHASE to the applied voltage from the source.  And while that circuit is closed and while that current is allowed to flow - then it will REMAIN THERE - FIXED AND UNVARYING - except as it may reduce in synch with the reduction in the voltage from the battery supply.  Which - in turn - is determined by the rate of current flow.  And the amount of potential difference at the battery is measured as watt hours.  IT DOES NOT GENERATE A NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW ITSELF.  EVER.  It simply is an induced voltage that is measurable.  That's it. 
 
SO. The amount of energy that is delivered by the battery supply source is NEVER a product of the negative voltage measured across the load resistor.  That has absolutely nothing to do with the current flowing through a circuit.  And this and indeed those unusual and preferred acronyms of POUT AND PIN are the source of Poynty's confusions.  And these confusions  have littered his analysis of all power measurements to date.  And that is the justification that he relies on to REFUTE OUR CLAIM.  It is unfortunate.  The more so as he has assured you all that it is OUR WORK that is flawed and that it is my efforts that are laughable.  And it is precisely the Ramsets of this world who are thereby convinced that our analysis is GROSSLY FLAWED and therefore there is NO EVIDENCE TO DATE OF OVER UNITY.  INDEED THERE IS.  Lots of it.  Ours is just another example.
 
Which is also why I was most anxious to have this public discussion with Poynty Point.  Frankly I'm getting rather tired of all his scoffing the more so as it seems that those pretentious scientists on his forum seem to assume any kind of authority at all - in their analysis of energy.  The worst of it is that there are many members here who they convince.  It's tragic.  That such unscientific protocols ever carry any kind of credence at all.  Which is why I'm increasingly alarmed when I see them look to more and more victims to denounce as pretenders.  When all the while it is THEY who are simply pretending to any kind of authority at all using the established scientific protocols in any misapplication that they choose.  And then POURING SCORN on those of us who PROTEST.  Golly.
 
It intrigues me too that they assume that such criticisms could be prejudicial to their reputations.  None of them disclose their real names.  And to a man - they are willing to allege any kind of abuse on those such as me and our good names.  And they get away with it.  Extraordinary. Worst still - they're effective.  I'm reasonably satisfied that Ramset has been entirely convinced by them that our claims are false.  It's a crying shame.  They simply are not. Our measurements are unarguable. 
 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: CuriousChris on January 13, 2012, 02:06:02 PM
The answer to this argument is simple.

place some very large capacitors in parallel with the batteries
place a switch in series with the batteries such that when the switch is open the batteries are disconnected from the circuit, but the capacitors are still connected to the circuit.

Start the oscillator. When you are happy the oscillator is running stably. turn the switch off. the capacitors are now supplying the current.

If your circuit is indeed OU then the capacitors should remain charged and the circuit should continue to oscillate. if instead the circuit is UU then the voltage across the caps will quickly dissipate and the cct will stop oscillating.

If the cct continues to oscillate congratulations. If not the cct is not OU.

If you believe that capacitors don't support the oscillation due to fundamental differences between caps and batteries you must be able to put forward a cogent explanation of why. Once you have that fundamental explanation then you can alter the cct to allow for those differences and then make it work using the caps.

If you cannot make it work using the caps. then it serves no useful purpose. as long as it needs batteries it will never be considered OU.

CC

P.S.

I have often wondered if I crack the OU puzzle how would I get the message out. For me the answer is simple. Create a kit, sell it on Ebay with a say 60 day warranty. This lets others test it and validate it for you. If the kit doesn't work you will quickly learn about it in negative feedback and paypal will refund the peoples money.

If your kit works you wont need to worry about refunds.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 05:09:34 PM
Hello Chris

I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to read the papers.  We cover that point about capacitors.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: CuriousChris on January 14, 2012, 02:30:47 AM

I had read it but I wanted you to cover it again for your own sake

Quote
Therefore, to test whether this retained
potential difference is  a  required condition to enable the
oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during
operation when the oscillation was fully established. The
batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in
series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to  a
zero  voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that
the retained potential difference at the primary supply source
is required, if not entirely responsible,  for driving this
oscillation.

The conclusion is correct. In that one paragraph you have proved the device is not OU.

If any current was SOURCED from the device it would have recharged the capacitor(s) and provided the necessary potential difference to keep the cct running.

This simple test showed that any current you were seeing "flowing back into the battery" was little more than leakage current caused by the breakdown of the Zener diodes. Because you used an inductive load, when Q2 was switched off by the signal generator, the flux around the inductor collapses and causes a voltage spike (cemf). The voltage quickly exceeds the zeners breakdown voltage of 1000V and current flows back to the battery, because the voltage is quite high it 'recharges' the battery, but only by a very small amount.

I won't enter the discussion on the signal generator being the source of energy because I could not find any details about it. In any real test it must be factored into it. it sources current into the system so that MUST be taken into account. In general signal generators are quite low impedance as well, some I have seen as low as 50 ohms, which means that current can flow through the generator in ways that needs to be accounted for.

If you still fail to see your own test as proof the system is UU. The next test is not so much harder.

Supply a large source of liquid (preferably repleneshing i.e. from a tap) place your heater element in the liquid (flow).
Calculate the watt hours the battery can give you
Calculate the wattage used by the heater element (remember to use Vrms or determine your duty cycle and use that to calculate the watt hours your load consumes)
Properly heatsink your mosfets so they don't fail during the test. (perhaps use the same water supply? you can buy liquid cooled heat sinks. just look up liquid cooled PC's)

Turn your device on

Wait n hours (till the batteries have consumed their calculated watt hours). Smile you are 1/3 of the way there.

Wait another n*2 hours (if you have true OU it won't matter how long you wait, but it should be this at a minimum)

If its still running return to the capacitor problem and try and work out a "COGENT" explanation for why it failed. If you can't explain it in a simple scientific way don't try to make Shit Up. Just accept you don't know why the capacitor test failed and let the physicists determine why the caps failed.


If you reach this point then do as I suggest. market your device in kit form. it will both generate an income for you and silence your critics.

I will be the first to buy one, provided it is suitably guaranteed of course.

On to the flame wars you are having with poynt99. It is doing you no favours, You are behaving in such a condescending manner, and your verboseness indicates you seem to relish in it. What does that say about you as a person?

Just agree to disagree with Poynt99 and leave it at that.


CC

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 14, 2012, 04:22:22 AM
... POWER IS NOT WATTAGE....  Power is ALWAYS REPRESENTED AS JOULES which is vi dt. 

Rosemary

OMG!
Rose, how many times can you get this wrong????
JOULES IS NOT POWER!!!!!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on January 14, 2012, 05:00:51 AM
Dear Harti,

Thank you for getting back to me.  And compliments of the season.  I trust you had a good holiday.
If I understand this correctly you're asking where we measured the power FROM the generator in the application of that signal at the transistors.  If this is right we explained this in the paper.  We measured the amount of power and found it to not only be negligible but to have a negative value in relation to the supply.  Therefore it would served to DEPLETE rather than to ADD to the energy coming from the battery.  In any event the current value is that negligible that it can be comfortably factored into the margins for error. 




No, I meant to measure the power into the function generator at the grid input of the function generator, so at the 230 Volts AC side with a digital power meter.

Quote
We used high wattage resistors PRECISELY because we were generating HIGH CURRENT.  No doubt it would be preferred to use those highly calibrated shunt resistors but, unfortunately, they were and are outside our budget.  HOWEVER - the problems associated with the small inductances on those resistors are only relevant if our measurements of energy are marginal.  This is not the case in any of the examples included in that paper. 
Margins for error has been factored in and most certainly IS referenced in that paper.


You can build yourself very cheaply NONINDUCTIVE Shunts for high power by using a parallel and serial circuit of
SMD shunt resistors. These are noninductive then.

Quote
We tested this on a 555 switch.  Reference again in that paper.  The results are the same.  And our results were measured using a Tektronix oscilloscope meter in conjunction with the LeCroy.  They give precisely equivalent results.  The Tektronix is not grounded.  Therefore the LeCroy results are confirmed not be influenced by ground.  We only used the LeCroy screen downloads for the paper because they are clearer and gives a fuller account of the circuit values.

Lets exactly see the circuit diagram then on this and also a new video with this.
How is the 555 circuit powered ?

Will the circuit then also put out these power levels without any scope
or measurement gear connected ?
Just the 12 Volt car batteries and the circuit alone ?

Also you should use a professional battery capacity meter so see the
remaining energy still stored inside the batteries.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 05:06:52 AM
Let's get back to your original comments here Chris

The answer to this argument is simple.

place some very large capacitors in parallel with the batteries
place a switch in series with the batteries such that when the switch is open the batteries are disconnected from the circuit, but the capacitors are still connected to the circuit.

Start the oscillator. When you are happy the oscillator is running stably. turn the switch off. the capacitors are now supplying the current.

If your circuit is indeed OU then the capacitors should remain charged and the circuit should continue to oscillate. if instead the circuit is UU then the voltage across the caps will quickly dissipate and the cct will stop oscillating.
Where has anyone, ever, in this proud history of quantum electromagnetic engineering - ever been able to isolate an electric current - store it in a capacitor - away from its source - and then use it to continuously supply an electric current?  Are you seriously proposing that we first perform feats of magic where we deplete all potential difference on a circuit - and then expect current to 'magically' ignore this lack and still operate under conditions required in term of inductive laws?  Because, I assure you - that FAR exceeds our claim.  Our reference of that test - in our paper - was PRECISELY to PROVE that a retained potential difference is REQUIRED.  I believe this conforms to the KNOWN conditions required to generate electric current flow.

Therefore - where you state that ... 

If the cct continues to oscillate congratulations. If not the cct is not OU.
in order to first PROVE OU - is somewhat outside our mere mortal capabilities.  We have only determined that current flow carries properties of charge.  We most certainly do NOT claim that this charge can isolated from its source.  ON THE CONTRARY.  :o

If you believe that capacitors don't support the oscillation due to fundamental differences between caps and batteries you must be able to put forward a cogent explanation of why.
And we most certainly DO propose that capacitors are fundamentally different to batteries.  We proved this precisely by that test.  The batteries retain their potential difference.  Capacitors DO NOT.  Again.  That is precisely why this test was referenced in that paper.

Once you have that fundamental explanation then you can alter the cct to allow for those differences and then make it work using the caps.
If only.   ;D   Perhaps you can propose a solution.  That would be much appreciated by not only us - but by the entire global community.  You would, however, have to rewrite science.  We DO NOT presume to go to such extraordinary lengths.  Indeed - we ONLY use standard physics within the standard model.

If you cannot make it work using the caps. then it serves no useful purpose. as long as it needs batteries it will never be considered OU.
Interesting conclusion Chris.  I suppose we could - as you suggest - simply pretend that the retained potential difference in the battery has no value.  It would be a really novel take on energy efficiency.  But, at a stretch - I suppose we could ALL manage this - if we tried hard enough.  Clearly you've set us a good example.

And then to your post script.
I have often wondered if I crack the OU puzzle how would I get the message out. For me the answer is simple. Create a kit, sell it on Ebay with a say 60 day warranty. This lets others test it and validate it for you. If the kit doesn't work you will quickly learn about it in negative feedback and paypal will refund the peoples money.
Feel free.  You know how to put the circuit together.  So?  Try it out and then sell those units.  Personally I'm more into promoting the thesis - which logic somehow eludes you.

Kindest regard,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 05:30:50 AM

No, I meant to measure the power into the function generator at the grid input of the function generator, so at the 230 Volts AC side with a digital power meter.
No we've not done this - but I'll attend to it. 

You can build yourself very cheaply NONINDUCTIVE Shunts for high power by using a parallel and serial circuit of
SMD shunt resistors. These are noninductive then.
I have no intention of changing the conditions on the existing artifact.  But I'll certainly do a second build and include these shunts if you require them.  If I can't source them  - then presumably you can.

Lets exactly see the circuit diagram then on this and also a new video with this.
How is the 555 circuit powered ?
I'm afraid I lost my camera on holiday.  I'll be replacing it when and if I get an insurance refund and that may take a bit of time.  However - the circuit is described in the paper and in the circuit diagram in Peswiki.   And the 555 can be powered by an independent supply or by connections straight to the supply batteries of the apparatus.

Will the circuit then also put out these power levels without any scope or measurement gear connected ?
No.  Here we have a problem.  We tune it according to the value in the math trace of the LeCroy.  It's a critical measurement.  Can you access an equivalent scope?  If not then I may be able to rally.

Just the 12 Volt car batteries and the circuit alone ?
Another small problem.  We may actually need more batteries that your stipulated maximum.  Is this negotiable.  It would be a shame to take the trouble to demonstrate this without the energy required to take water to boil.

Also you should use a professional battery capacity meter so see the
remaining energy still stored inside the batteries.
It would be nice to do a full evaluation of the battery.  I agree.  I have NOT gone that route because there's a warning on our batteries that their efficiency is compromised if they're opened.  So I've left them sealed as I can't afford to let them degrade.  They're way outside my budget to replace. Again.  We can make a plan.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited.  Added the word 'source'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 05:36:18 AM
OMG!
Rose, how many times can you get this wrong? ???
JOULES IS NOT POWER!!!!!

I agree with you Bubba.  Always have.  Joules certainly IS NOT POWER.  It is the measure of power dissipated. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: CuriousChris on January 14, 2012, 06:46:30 AM

It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.
Rather than pay heed to those who wish to help, if they don't agree implicitly with you you denigrate them as fools. The only true fools on this forum are the ones who do not question another's claims.

OU is simple to prove, Pin < Pout. Its not beyond mere mortals. My second form of proof is beyond reproach which is obviously why you ignored it.

You claim infinite OU, Err sorry infinite COP, by that definition your one cct should be able to power every device in the world and still be hardly touched.

I don't doubt you will continue with your rant. Good luck with that. Its a shame because you are obviously very intelligent and your ability with the written word is outstanding. In any other circumstance I would admire you.

CC

P.S.
1 Watt = 1 joule / 1 second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on January 14, 2012, 06:55:15 AM
Rosemary, at least get such a battery tester or simular one,
it is not too expensive.
You can read the customer recommendations on Amazon about it.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 07:52:19 AM
My dear Curious Chris,  I have just read your last post and have not yet answered this.  Give me a break.  I have only two hands and - according to Poynty Point - a seriously impaired mind to operate with.  I was indeed going to get around to this post.  It's ALARMING - on so many levels.

I had read it but I wanted you to cover it again for your own sake
Kind of you to keep my own interests in mind.  It's a first from one such as yourself.  Thank you - INDEED.

If any current was SOURCED from the device it would have recharged the capacitor(s) and provided the necessary potential difference to keep the cct running.
I've covered this point.  Unless you want to add to it?  Happy to consider all alternatives here.  Who knows?  Perhaps you know something about the properties of current that is NOT widely understood.  If so, then please advise us.

This simple test showed that any current you were seeing "flowing back into the battery" was little more than leakage current caused by the breakdown of the Zener diodes. Because you used an inductive load, when Q2 was switched off by the signal generator, the flux around the inductor collapses and causes a voltage spike (cemf). The voltage quickly exceeds the zeners breakdown voltage of 1000V and current flows back to the battery, because the voltage is quite high it 'recharges' the battery, but only by a very small amount.
If those diodes are leaking then it's a SERIOUS leak.  Upwards of 5 amps.  Golly.


I won't enter the discussion on the signal generator being the source of energy because I could not find any details about it. In any real test it must be factored into it. it sources current into the system so that MUST be taken into account. In general signal generators are quite low impedance as well, some I have seen as low as 50 ohms, which means that current can flow through the generator in ways that needs to be accounted for.
Which is why we took the trouble to measure it.

This next comment is the source of my concern.
If you still fail to see your own test as proof the system is UU. The next test is not so much harder.

Supply a large source of liquid (preferably repleneshing i.e. from a tap) place your heater element in the liquid (flow).
Calculate the watt hours the battery can give you
Calculate the wattage used by the heater element (remember to use Vrms or determine your duty cycle and use that to calculate the watt hours your load consumes)
Properly heatsink your mosfets so they don't fail during the test. (perhaps use the same water supply? you can buy liquid cooled heat sinks. just look up liquid cooled PC's)
We HAVE done this test.  Did you miss this in our papers?  What we did NOT do was test the battery to its duration.  Nor will we.  Because that's for comment and analysis by Chemistry experts.  None of the collaborators are chemists.

If its still running return to the capacitor problem and try and work out a "COGENT" explanation for why it failed. If you can't explain it in a simple scientific way don't try to make Shit Up. Just accept you don't know why the capacitor test failed and let the physicists determine why the caps failed.
So well put Curious Chris.  Couldn't have managed it better myself.  INDEED.  We DO NOT EXPLAIN THIS.  INDEED WE APPEAL TO OUR ACADEMICS TO EXPLAIN THIS.  INDEED WE DO NOT MAKE SHIT UP.  We have gone out of our way to ensure that the assessments for the observed anomalies are addressed by our academic experts.  It's in the paper.  Again.  Did you read it?

If you reach this point then do as I suggest. market your device in kit form. it will both generate an income for you and silence your critics.

I will be the first to buy one, provided it is suitably guaranteed of course.
If you don't mind I'll pass on this.  But feel free to build your own kit.  I'm not that anxious to sell you anything at all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
Golly I'm getting seriously old.  I missed this comment entirely.


On to the flame wars you are having with poynt99. It is doing you no favours, You are behaving in such a condescending manner, and your verboseness indicates you seem to relish in it. What does that say about you as a person?

Just agree to disagree with Poynt99 and leave it at that.


CC


Flame wars?  Is that how you describe my hard fought efforts?  I don't think so.  A 'flame war' is NEVER RESOLVED.  By definition it comprises a slew of unsubstantiated allegations that are not logically argued.  It requires the heavily polarised opinion of all who engage.  It is confrontational and entirely destructive.  I hope that I NEVER engage in such nonsense.  It's not my style.  I prefer to keep things either clear - logical - or amusing.  If I rant - then I own up to it.  And I try - to the best of my ability - to stick to the POYNT.

On the other hand!  It seems to be the preferred tactic of Poynty Point.  He does NOT engage in argument as he simply CANNOT.  His grounds are too thin - brittle - shaky.  So.  He indulges in some rather facile attempts at posing either 'exasperation at my continuing stupidity' or 'indignation at my apparent lack of logic or understanding' and he DARE NOT ARGUE ANYTHING AT ALL.  This is because he cannot.

May I remind you Curious Christopher - that Poynty Point has replicated our experiment on his own simulation program.  That he saw precisely the same results.  And that he then proceeded to amass the most curious analysis that has ever confronted standard physics and conventional thinking - by seriously proposing to multiply a positive voltage - with a negative voltage to substantiate what was meant to be an outright refutation of that proof.  And NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, confronted him with any arguments against those utterly fallacious conclusions.  THEN.  As if that was not enough - he proceeded to endorse, allow and even engage in the most serious exercise in slander that has ever disgraced these forums.  Nor would I have done anything EXCEPT THAT he then also encouraged a renewed attack on yet another hopeful experimentalist.  That he ignored the evidence of Rossi's extraordinary technology and yet will engage in these facile attempts at pack hunting claimants as his daily forum diet was actually more than I could stomach. I decided - FOR ONCE - to challenge him on his own grounds.  And that challenge still holds.  Clearly he is unable to answer it.  I can stomach any personal insults.  But I most certainly will NOT allow his continuing agenda to deny evidence in the face of that evidence.  If he is seriously looking for OU - then ARGUE OUR CLAIM.  We have measured proof.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on January 14, 2012, 08:25:55 AM
It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.

are you really that asinine? you accuse rose of what you have just committed...  ::)
as evidenced by the record...
Let's get back to your original comments here Chris
Where has anyone, ever, in this proud history of quantum electromagnetic engineering - ever been able to isolate an electric current - store it in a capacitor - away from its source - and then use it to continuously supply an electric current?  Are you seriously proposing that we first perform feats of magic where we deplete all potential difference on a circuit - and then expect current to 'magically' ignore this lack and still operate under conditions required in term of inductive laws?

you cherrypicked and completely avoided answering her...  i submit you are the troll. i assume you will continue to cherrypick and avoid an answer...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 08:37:18 AM
And as for this nonsense.

It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.
Rather than pay heed to those who wish to help, if they don't agree implicitly with you you denigrate them as fools. The only true fools on this forum are the ones who do not question another's claims.
When I need help from the likes of you - Curious Chris - then I'll ask for it.

OU is simple to prove, Pin < Pout. Its not beyond mere mortals. My second form of proof is beyond reproach which is obviously why you ignored it.
I did not ignore it.  Kindly refer to my previous post.

You claim infinite OU, Err sorry infinite COP, by that definition your one cct should be able to power every device in the world and still be hardly touched.
That would, indeed, be very nice.  IF ONLY.  But it is NOT our claim - and NOR IS IT FEASIBLE.  May I remind you.  Our arguments conform to the standard model.  I'm not sure it allows a simple capacitor to power the whole wide world.  But again.  Wouldn't that be nice. ;D

I don't doubt you will continue with your rant. Good luck with that. Its a shame because you are obviously very intelligent and your ability with the written word is outstanding. In any other circumstance I would admire you.
I can ASSURE YOU that my intelligence is DECIDEDLY AVERAGE.  It does NOT take exceptional intelligence to either UNDERSTAND the standard model of physics or to argue the simple requirements in power analysis.  THAT is the issue.  Not my abilities. 

If I was looking to win a popularity contest then there's an outside chance that I'd fail.   ;D   But my popularity or otherwise is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is that we have an over unity claim based on experimental evidence - that Poynty Point is denying.  And I most urgently require that to be addressed.  Unless, of course, you recommend that I simply say nothing and allow a valuable potential technology to be BURIED by POYNTY and his pack of protesters?  I'm not inclined to oblige you.

And regarding this postscript? What exactly is your point?  I don't think I've argued against it.
1 Watt = 1 joule / 1 second

Kindest regards
Rosemary

ADDED  ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 08:45:41 AM
WILBY - just seen your post.  THANK GOD YOU'RE STILL THERE.  It's been lonely here.  THANK YOU.

Kindest as ever
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 14, 2012, 05:12:58 PM
I agree with you Bubba.  Always have.  Joules certainly IS NOT POWER.  It is the measure of power dissipated. 
Rosemary

Watts is a measure of power.
Joules is a measure of energy.
Power and energy are related the same way speed and distance are related, and you keep getting power and energy mixed up.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 14, 2012, 05:44:33 PM
Watts is a measure of power.
Joules is a measure of energy.
Power and energy are related the same way speed and distance are related, and you keep getting power and energy mixed up.

Bubba why are you plugging this?  I took the trouble to look up the definition in wiki.  Here it is
 In physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), power is the rate at which energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) is transferred, used, or transformed. For example, the rate at which a light bulb transforms electrical energy into heat and light is measured in watts—the more wattage, the more power, or equivalently the more electrical energy is used per unit time

NOTE - it uses the word EQUIVALENTLY.  And I've used both words in precisely these contexts.  But I'll check with someone who  really does know and will get back to you.  Maybe by Monday.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 14, 2012, 09:28:36 PM
Dear three readers of this thread,

Watt (W) is the UNIT of power (P).
Joule (J) is the UNIT of Energy (E).

Rosemary in her ignorance is rallying to have "P" thrown out entirely, and have "W" put in it's place for power equations.  ::) How absurd!

Here is the nonsense I'm referring to:
He proposes the terms POUT (POWER OUT) AND PIN (POWER IN) and proceeds to represent that number as WATTAGE.  Which is a horribly flawed and a rather abused misuse of the term power.  POWER IS NOT WATTAGE.  So WHY does he use the term POUT or PIN or anything like this - AT ALL -  when WOUT - OR WIN - if anything - would be more appropriate?  And even that is debatable.  But I'll get there.  For now, just know that these terms have little - if any relevance to their use as determined by ALL standard or conventional terminologies.  His use of them - his invention of these terms POUT AND PIN are only a reflection of his own rather eccentric misunderstandings of the term power.  It has absolutely no support, whatsoever. in any conventional analysis.  Power is ALWAYS REPRESENTED AS JOULES which is vi dt.  Else it's NOT POWER.  It's WATTAGE - or vi.

Rosemary will next be rallying to have "I" for current changed to "A" for Amperes, since Amperes is the unit of current. ::)   Imagine this, instead of I=V/R, she would have it as A=V/R.  ???

The terms Pin and Pout are most certainly not my invention. But then most folks here already know this, even the amateur experimentalists. Complaining about using shortened versions of "input power" and "output power" when it is quite clear what they mean, is you playing "silly-bugger". When calculating the efficiency of an electrical device, one common method of determining "n" (efficiency) is to divide the output power in Watts by the input power in Watts, i.e. n=Pout/Pin. So if you have a problem with this commonly-used and accepted terminology, then it is your problem alone. Get over it.

"Power is always represented as Joules" according to Rosemary. Incorrect!

Power is given in Watts, and Energy is given in Joules. Watts and Joules are UNITS for power and energy respectively.

Rosemary, you are hopelessly confused about power and energy measurements. Please stop spreading your nonsense. Oh, and don't always count on Wiki as being a reliable source for correct information.
.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 14, 2012, 10:02:56 PM
Here are a few examples where the terms "Pin" and "Pout" are used:

http://sound.westhost.com/efficiency.htm

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency  (yes even your wiki)

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 01:21:17 AM
Hello again Poynty Point

Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Unless Harti's 'view' rates - as recorded - are GROSS misrepresentations of this, then I think we both know that there's upwards of 600 hits here a day.  In fact, by tomorrow this time I'll be able to give you an EXACT count.  I have a friend who keeps record.  Which leaves us with a problem.  Which of those three readers of that > 600 or thereby who are reading here, are you addressing?  Personally I get the distinct impression that you're rather relying on the fact that there ARE only 3 readers.  But we all of us realise that you're not inclined to allow mere facts - or raw data -  shape your opinion.  So.  I have a small problem?  What to do?  Find out who you're appealing to and ask them to answer you?  Or simply answer you myself?  Since I doubt that there are any telepaths reading this that they can inform us all, and in view of the URGENCY of the matter - frankly, it's probably better that I deal with this.  Else everyone reading here will assume that there's ever any merit at all in applying those grossly erroneous conventions of PIN AND POUT. 

In any event I've split the following posts into one each for each reference.  Else the page just looks confusing.

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 01:23:10 AM
Now clearly you must have gone to some considerable lengths to find some internet examples of this sorely ABUSED terminology.  So.  Let's see what they say.  The first is an article by Rod Elliott who in this link http://sound.westhost.com/efficiency.htm states...
 
'We will start with the assumption that the transistors in Figure 1 are 'ideal', in that there is no base current needed (they have infinite gain), and no voltage at all is lost when fully conducting.  The bias voltage is adjusted so that the transistors are exactly on the verge of conduction, but no quiescent current flows. Given that the supply voltage is +/-20V, this allows a peak swing into an ideal 8 Ohm resistive load of 20 Volts, which is an RMS voltage of 14.14V.  The peak current is 20/8, or 2.5 Amps, and this equates to 1.768 Amps RMS.  The power to the load is 25 Watts. <blockquote> P = V * I     or ...
 P = V² / R     or ...
 P = I² * R </blockquote> Where P = power in Watts, V = voltage, I = current, and R = resistance.  Voltage and current are RMS.  Note that the term "RMS Power" is erroneous - power is the result of RMS voltage and RMS current applied to a load, and is measured in Watts.  Although "RMS power" is not real, it has become accepted to mean that RMS voltage and RMS current were used to measure the power."
 
You notice that he first gives a schematic that locates the position of OUT AND IN - clearly - on a circuit.  Then he takes the trouble to define his terms.  He clarifies his argument.  He states, unequivocally that what he is referencing as P or Power is ACTUALLY Watts.  You need to follow his good example.  Which means that IF you really need to promote those eccentric terms of POUT AND PIN - that you FIRST show where - on your schematic - you refer to 'out' and 'in'.  And then - following the good example of Mr Elliott - you then explain that by P you actually mean to represent WATTS.  Who could argue with that?  I know I couldn't.
 
Notice too that he states 'power is the result of RMS voltage and RMS current applied to a load, and is measured in Watts'.  Again.  Who's arguing?  Those units of watts over time is the measure of power.  vi dt.  BUT PLEASE NOTE.  Power is NOT watts.  It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME.
 
By the way - I've again scanned that document.  I see absolutely NO reference to POUT OR PIN.  He does, in his table, have a heading Pout and Pin - if that's what you're relying on?  Not sure?  But IF this is it - then, indeed, there is no evident misuse of anything at all.  I do hope you see this Poynty Point.  HE'S DEPARTED FROM CONVENTIONAL USES OF A TERMINOLOGY AND THEREFORE HE FIRST DEFINED HIS TERMS
 
R
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 01:26:00 AM
Now to the second example.  Not sure of the author but here's the link http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html.  And here's the extract...
 
"Electrical motor efficiency (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html) is the ratio between the       shaft output power - and the electrical nput power. Electrical Motor Efficiency when Shaft Output is measured in Watt If power output is measured in Watt (W), efficiency (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html) can be expressed as:
 <blockquote> ηm =  Pout / Pin             (1)
where
ηm = motor efficiency (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html)
Pout = shaft power out (Watt, W)
Pin = electric power in to the motor (Watt, W)"</blockquote>
 
No need to go into this in great detail as it's just more of the same.  Clear definitions.  Shows what he means by in and what he means by out and what he's referring to which is the use of P here represented in watts.  All entirely acceptable.  It all conforms to the requirement for perfect clarity.
 
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 01:30:08 AM
NOW.  To wiki in this link  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency)  This was more confusing.  Here the term power is NOT defined - but there's a diagram to the left of that page that shows what is meant by 'out' and 'in'.  In any event - here's what it states.

"Energy conversion efficiency is not defined uniquely, but instead depends on the usefulness of the output. All or part of the heat produced from burning a fuel may become rejected waste heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_heat) if, for example, work is the desired output from a thermodynamic cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_cycle).  Even though the definition includes the notion of usefulness, efficiency (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/efficiency) is considered a technical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology) or physical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) term. Goal or mission oriented terms include effectiveness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness) and efficacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy).

Generally, energy conversion efficiency is a dimensionless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless) number between 0 and 1.0, or 0 to 100%. Efficiencies may not exceed 100%, e.g., for a perpetual motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion) machine. However, other effectiveness measures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency) that can exceed 1.0 are used for heat pumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pumps) and other devices that move heat rather than convert it.

When talking about the efficiency of heat engines and power stations the convention should be stated, i.e., HHV (aka Gross Heating Value etc.) or LCV (aka Net Heating value), and whether gross output (at the generator terminals) or net output (at the power station fence) are being considered. The two are separate but both must be stated. Failure to do so causes endless confusion."


It says absolutely NOTHING about the use of Pout and Pin other than it's use relates to a measure of energy efficiencies.  So.  I'm not sure that's clarified anything at all.

R   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 01:41:05 AM
THEREFORE, Poynty Point, I would suggest that your first two examples show us all a perfect use of scientific terminologies where those terms are first defined with impeccable clarity.  The more so when they're used outside their standard applications.  Always a good reach.  Wiki's definitions are a bit thin at this stage.  But no doubt someone will attend to it in due course.

If you - in the same way - could follow in the footsteps of those two early examples and DEFINE your terms then I'm reasonably satisfied that there is no-one in their right mind who could object.  What I've pointed out is that YOU DO NOT DEFINE ANYTHING AT ALL.  You reference OUT and IN without clear schematic explanations - and then you proceed to refer to POUT AND PIN and show us a computation in WATTS.  I put it to you AGAIN - that it is a travesty on conventional practice and it is an ABUSE of scientific terminologies as it is simply NOT CLEAR and and it most certainly is NOT standard practice.

But that was only one of the MANY objections that I listed.  Do I need to repeat them again.  Or are you going to address all salient points?   Here's a reminder of some of them.

May I remind you Curious Christopher - that Poynty Point has replicated our experiment on his own simulation program.  That he saw precisely the same results.  And that he then proceeded to amass the most curious analysis that has ever confronted standard physics and conventional thinking - by seriously proposing to multiply a positive voltage - with a negative voltage to substantiate what was meant to be an outright refutation of that proof.  And NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, confronted him with any arguments against those utterly fallacious conclusions.  THEN.  As if that was not enough - he proceeded to endorse, allow and even engage in the most serious exercise in slander that has ever disgraced these forums.  Nor would I have done anything EXCEPT THAT he then also encouraged a renewed attack on yet another hopeful experimentalist.  That he ignored the evidence of Rossi's extraordinary technology and yet will engage in these facile attempts at pack hunting claimants as his daily forum diet was actually more than I could stomach. I decided - FOR ONCE - to challenge him on his own grounds.  And that challenge still holds.  Clearly he is unable to answer it.  I can stomach any personal insults.  But I most certainly will NOT allow his continuing agenda to deny evidence in the face of that evidence.  If he is seriously looking for OU - then ARGUE OUR CLAIM.  We have measured proof.


Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 15, 2012, 02:37:46 AM
Those units of watts over time is the measure of power.  vi dt.  BUT PLEASE NOTE.  Power is NOT watts.  It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME....

.99 is right:  "you are hopelessly confused about power and energy measurements".

Power IS watts.  Watts over time is the measure of ENERGY.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 15, 2012, 02:46:24 AM
Let's see, you mentioned defining the terminology...

From Page 33 of my document "detailed_analysis06.pdf":
Quote
Reviewing the methodology involved in obtaining the measurement of average input power (Pin), we have:

From Page 39 same document:
Quote
At this point, the equation for average INPUT power (Pin) is as follows:

Finally from Page 40:
Quote
So finally, we are left with an extremely simple, accurate, and accessible method for obtaining the average INPUT power measurement Pin(avg) for any DC source;

I don't believe I used the term Pout at all in the aforementioned document.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 02:47:34 AM
.99 is right:  "you are hopelessly confused about power and energy measurements".

Power IS watts.  Watts over time is the measure of ENERGY.

Bubba - For heaven's sake.  Watts represents the average unit of power delivered or dissipated - every second.  Power factors in the number of seconds that that energy has been delivered or dissipated.  I don't mind you claiming that this is fallacious.  Just as long as your own confusions don't spread as rampantly as Poynty's.  Poynty unfortunately owns a forum - and his confusions are positively contagious.

I am alarmed to see how anyone can, with any pretense at authority - claim that power is watts.  It is quite simply WRONG.  Really, grossly and fundamentally WRONG.  Until I see an unequivocal statement from some renowned academic - that argues otherwise. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 02:53:08 AM
Let's see, you mentioned defining the terminology:

From Page 33 of my document "detailed_analysis06.pdf"
From Page 39 same document:
Finally from Page 40:
I don't believe I used the term Pout at all in the aforementioned document.

.99


Dear Poynty Point,

HOW NICE IS THIS?  You've either actually corrected your own preferred terminologies or you've corrected that document.  Either way, delighted to see that you're no longer simply referring to PIN AND POUT.  Spare me the need to reference those multiple forum examples where this abuse was open for the entire world to read.

Now.  Are we going to reference your document?  If so then may I propose that you email me a copy of this?  Otherwise can we perhaps reference our paper?  OR BOTH.  Take your pick.  But I must first be able to read your document. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 15, 2012, 02:54:12 AM
For the sake of posterity, this is priceless:

Bubba - For heaven's sake.  Watts represents the average unit of power delivered or dissipated - every second.  Power factors in the number of seconds that that energy has been delivered or dissipated.  I don't mind you claiming that this is fallacious.  Just as long as your own confusions don't spread as rampantly as Poynty's.  Poynty unfortunately owns a forum - and his confusions are positively contagious.

I am alarmed to see how anyone can, with any pretense at authority - claim that power is watts.  It is quite simply WRONG.  Really, grossly and fundamentally WRONG.  Until I see an unequivocal statement from some renowned academic - that argues otherwise. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 02:57:10 AM
For the sake of posterity, this is priceless:

Nice to see that I'm appreciated.  Thank you for the tribute Poynty. 

Kindest as ever
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 15, 2012, 02:59:27 AM
Bubba - For heaven's sake.  Watts represents the average unit of power delivered or dissipated - every second.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

No, Rosemary, watts represents the average unit of ENERGY delivered or dissipated - every second.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 15, 2012, 03:01:10 AM
Dear Poynty Point,

HOW NICE IS THIS?  You've either actually corrected your own preferred terminologies or you've corrected that document.  Either way, delighted to see that you're no longer simply referring to PIN AND POUT.  Spare me the need to reference those multiple forum examples where this abuse was open for the entire world to read.

Now.  Are we going to reference your document?  If so then may I propose that you email me a copy of this?  Otherwise can we perhaps reference our paper?  OR BOTH.  Take your pick.  But I must first be able to read your document. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
 :-*

No changes or corrections made at all Rosemary. The document file is in its original form still dated 2011-06-18. You obviously never bothered to read it.

If you can't open a PDF file, I can't help you. This file I've already posted several times in several different places, even on Reply#52 here.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: CuriousChris on January 15, 2012, 03:17:27 AM

@Wilby, I answered the maximum I could without getting caught in a downward spiral, the one poynt99 seems to be stuck in with Rosemary.

The fact is, the cct Rosemary proclaims to have an impossible COP of infinity, is a very simply switching cct of which there are millions of in use everyday. Switchmode power supplies like the one you have in the pc you are using use the same basic design, much more refined of course but the similar nonetheless. Rosemary is to have us beleive there is something about her cct that doesn't present itself in those millions of others, that somehow her combination of values makes her cct achieve the improbable. She then proclaims that we should all believe her without actually doing proper tests herself. Although she claims to have done so.

Rosemary has now answered more of the criticisms in which she confirms she has not performed the tests to completion. Without driving the batteries substantially beyond their stated capacity there is no proof of anything. The purpose of the water is purely as a heatsink there is absolutely no need (at this point of testing) to take the water to the boil or any stated temperature. The entire purpose of the test is to prove that batteries last well beyond their stated capacity given the current draw. They should in fact never go flat if the cct indeed displays unity or greater.

On the point of replacing batteries with capacitors, I was aware that Rosemary claims to have tried that, and that it failed that test. that is why I immediately proposed that if she was unhappy with that she should do the 2nd test, the battery to exhaustion test.

Rosemary then tries to make outragious claims such as mere mortals can't prove OU. Why are we here then? If we cannot prove that, then whats the point.  What is the purpose of overunity.com?

There is also a major unknown in the cct. The signal generator. It introduces power into the system, it can't not. This part of the cct could be replace with some simple circuitry say a 555. or something more complex if the needs state that. but my point is there is an unknown which can easily be removed and thus accounted for.

This thread is very circular. one group of people saying you need to provide certain proofs, the other person and her supporters saying they have, then ignoring the first groups protestations of incompleteness of testing.

If Rosemary can prove the circuit can consume in excess of the batteries stated power rating (in amp hours) by a significant factor without going flat, then I am happy to join the host of believers. but she needs to answer other criticisms of her cct as well, such as the potential for the signal generator to influence the cct.  Until then, I like the others who think before they leap will continue to doubt her claims.


If you consider an attempt to support someone who has valid concerns which should be answered, As trolling then so be it. Rosemaries arguments are circular and she is very condescending. Trolling is probably not the right term and for that I apologise. but it is certainly improper.

If Rosemary fully believed she had some of such huge import such as a device with infinite COP (her words not mine).
Quote
I AM NOT CLAIMING AN OVER UNITY RESULT.  What we're CLAIMING is INFINITE COP.  And I have most CERTAINLY NOT refused to do any REASONABLE requests for tests.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/1725/  Why then has she not submitted it to a scientific journal for peer review. From there she could get the expert opinion she seems to want. Why submit it to this raggle taggle bag of hopefuls, many of whom don't understand even basic science?


CC

p.s.

Power is energy over time, To give it a name we call it watts (after James Watt), they are intimately connected. You cannot have power without energy, so you cannot have watts without joules, though of course the names could be different. If you exert 1 unit of energy (call it a joule) for a period of time (say 3600 seconds) you have consumed 3600 joules, or 1 watt hour.

To put it another way, we could say we have consumed 3600 joules of energy, but this statement gives us no indication of the time period this consumption occurred, was it over 1 second, 1 day, a year? 1 watt hour is simple, its an average of a joule for an hour. We could just as easily said "1 joule per second for an hour", but watt hour is easier. If we tried to say 1 joule hour. confusion arises. is it 1 joule per second for an hour (3600 joules), or was it 1 joule over an hour (1/3600 of a joule per second).




 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: david lambright on January 15, 2012, 03:19:06 AM
hi rose, dont worry, very soon you will be vindicated. i know you are correct and there is more to physics than we ever thought possible. we as a human race, if it can be imagined it can be DONE. dont be discouraged! stay in touch
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 15, 2012, 03:32:10 AM
CC,

Don't fret too much over the function generator. It is actually dissipating some of the power off the Drain (through capacitive coupling). It is serving only to provide a positive VGS bias to cause the oscillation. If you were only interested in having a constant oscillation (as opposed to a burst oscillation mode which Rosemary is fascinated with), then the function generator could be replaced with a simple variable DC supply.

This was covered in great detail by me several months ago.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hoptoad on January 15, 2012, 03:45:28 AM
snip.. BUT PLEASE NOTE. Power is NOT watts. It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME. snip...
Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 Ampère is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 03:58:45 AM
Dear Curious Chris
 
 This last post of yours - like Alice's disappearing feet - is losing all relevance to our paper and to our claim and is a gross misrepresentation - not only of our intentions in promoting this technology - but in what I have said about this technology.  'Curiouser and curiouser' is I think how Alice described it.  And since it is ENTIRELY about our claim - I think it would have better been addressed to me.

Here's a list of where your observations err - Curious Christopher

We do not have a simple switching circuit.  Unless it is a simple feat to leave a battery disconnected while upwards of 5 amps is generated through a circuit?

Far from not wanting others to test this circuit I am MOST ANXIOUS that they do.  Which is why we wrote those papers.

We have tested those batteries way beyond their capacities over a period of 12 months without any measurable discharge of voltage from those batteries and with NO recharge other than from the circuit itself.

I do NOT want you to believe it.  Nothing could be further from my interest.  We want academics to evaluate it.

It is UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS to demand that we separate a current from it's source and then expect it to continually circulate through a circuit into perpetuity.  Yet you demanded that as PROOF.

The signal generator has been replaced with a 555 and delivers an entirely UNINTERRUPTED CURRENT FLOW FOR THE DURATION that the negative signal is applied to the gate.  THIS HAS BEEN TESTED AND SHOWS PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS AS RESULTS FROM THE FUNCTION GENERATOR

Frankly I'd far rather that you NEVER believe our circuit works - for personal reasons.

I am NOT condescending.  I am FRANK

We MOST CERTAINLY HAVE submitted the paper to a reviewed journal.

And I have explained why I've rescued this thread.  It is to CHALLENGE POYNTY POINT FOR HIS PRIZE that he claims is on offer for an overunity result.

Can I impose on you to simply stay out of this?  Your posts are getting increasingly irrelevant.

Regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: CuriousChris on January 15, 2012, 04:03:45 AM
@poynt99

Coming late to the party has not, done me any favours I know.

But I am not sweating it its just a glaring cause of conscern that could be so easily accounted for.

I don't know how a variable DC supply could provide signal required to cause the cct to oscillate unless you are relying on the capacitance and inductance of the cct to make it self oscillate, the variable DC supply only providing the 'bias'. but this would be very difficult to control or even specify. If you are talking about making the variable DC supply part of the oscillator as in the voltage 'varies' due to a feedback mechanism.

Whatever mechanism is chosen to initiate and maintain the oscillations, it needs to be accounted for.

@David

Upon what basis do you give your support to Rosemary? Do you have some insight you could share with us. or is it just wishful thinking? You are correct physics will continue to amaze us for as long as we exist. but that's not an excuse to believe something someone say just because we want to believe it.


CC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MrMag on January 15, 2012, 04:16:57 AM
Hahaha, I thought this thread was closed a long time ago. Here it is a year or so later and people are still trying to get rosie to understand what a watt is. It's also hard to beleive that she hasn't been able to get any "Acedemics" to review her circuit yet. I wonder why that is??

Keep up the good work rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 04:28:32 AM
Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 Ampère is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad

 ;D Well put hoptoad.  And thanks for this.  In all that toing and froing - I missed this.  lol.

Actually I've just looked it up.  There's an outside chance that P can indeed represent watts per second.  But we used this in our paper and were advised to amend this to - Energy.  But who cares?  The point is that those POUT and PIN terminologies have been bandied around the place with reckless imprecision -  hopelessly ambiguous.  It ALWAYS needs definition.

Take care, and glad this has amused you.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 04:31:59 AM
Hahaha, I thought this thread was closed a long time ago. Here it is a year or so later and people are still trying to get rosie to understand what a watt is. It's also hard to beleive that she hasn't been able to get any "Acedemics" to review her circuit yet. I wonder why that is??

Keep up the good work rosie

 ;D Indeed.  I thought our threads were all getting a bit tired. Hopefully this will give it some impetus. 

Thanks MrMag,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 15, 2012, 04:38:26 AM
@poynt99

Coming late to the party has not, done me any favours I know.

But I am not sweating it its just a glaring cause of conscern that could be so easily accounted for.

I don't know how a variable DC supply could provide signal required to cause the cct to oscillate unless you are relying on the capacitance and inductance of the cct to make it self oscillate, the variable DC supply only providing the 'bias'. but this would be very difficult to control or even specify. If you are talking about making the variable DC supply part of the oscillator as in the voltage 'varies' due to a feedback mechanism.

Whatever mechanism is chosen to initiate and maintain the oscillations, it needs to be accounted for.

Indeed, it is the parasitic inductance and capacitance in the circuit causing it to oscillate, once the appropriate amount of voltage bias is applied to Q2.

Agreed, any power sources such as those providing bias or an oscillation should be accounted for to be most accurate.

The thing is this, Rosemary is claiming that the circuit produces over 100W of average power going back into the battery, and I know from the simulations that the function generator is contributing about 3W.

Once the measurements are taken properly (which they haven't been to date, despite what Rosemary thinks) , it becomes quite evident that the circuit is actually consuming about 30W of power from the battery, and in this case the 3W contributed by the function generator is a little more significant by comparison.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 04:40:11 AM
hi rose, dont worry, very soon you will be vindicated. i know you are correct and there is more to physics than we ever thought possible. we as a human race, if it can be imagined it can be DONE. dont be discouraged! stay in touch

And David.  I couldn't work out who on earth Curious Chris was referencing.  Thanks for this.  You're right of course.  Physics is WEIRD in it's potentials - and that's just working within the standard model - assuming there's any such thing.

Thanks for your support - as ever,
Rosie 

A small spelling correction.
Good heavens.  I wrote Curiouser Chris.  For some reason this must have been on my mind. Golly
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 04:46:52 AM

Indeed, it is the parasitic inductance and capacitance in the circuit causing it to oscillate, once the appropriate amount of voltage bias is applied to Q2.

Agreed, any power sources such as those providing bias or an oscillation should be accounted for to be most accurate.

The thing is this, Rosemary is claiming that the circuit produces over 100W of average power going back into the battery, and I know from the simulations that the function generator is contributing about 3W.

Once the measurements are taken properly (which they haven't been to date, despite what Rosemary thinks) , it becomes quite evident that the circuit is actually consuming about 30W of power from the battery, and in this case the 3W contributed by the function generator is a little more significant by comparison.

.99

Poytny Point,  I can't comment on this.  It has absolutely NO BEARING on anything that we've claimed or tested.  Would it be asking too much to email me your file?  I think I really should give it some attention.  In case you've lost it - my email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za
 
Alternatively we could, perhaps, just stick to that earlier post of yours where you proposed to multiply the voltage across the load with the voltage across the battery to ascertain it's power?
 
Your pick

As ever,
Rosie Posie

Edited again.  Took out a question mark.  My eyes are now REALLY tired guys.  I'm going to get some much needed sleep. 
 ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: aether22 on January 15, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
Ok, Rosemarry please excuse me for asking these questions.

First, do I understand correctly that there is a current in these circuits that not only is against the direction applied by the battery and the collapse, but that it moves through diodes/transistors in the wrong direction without apparent damage?

Actually, that really is the only question I had.

I am interested in replicating one of these circuits, what is the most robust preferred embodiment and parts?

Also for what it's worth I certainly know part of how these types of circuits work and I think I probably know enough to make them produce more power if you are interested. (and I'm not just blowing smoke)

Thanks,
John
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 01:22:54 PM
Ok, Rosemarry please excuse me for asking these questions.

First, do I understand correctly that there is a current in these circuits that not only is against the direction applied by the battery and the collapse, but that it moves through diodes/transistors in the wrong direction without apparent damage?

Actually, that really is the only question I had.

I am interested in replicating one of these circuits, what is the most robust preferred embodiment and parts?

Also for what it's worth I certainly know part of how these types of circuits work and I think I probably know enough to make them produce more power if you are interested. (and I'm not just blowing smoke)

Thanks,
John
Hello John.  If you can open those files that I posted you should get all you need on this subject.  I'll go back and see if I can repost it.  You've more or less got the gist of the claim - but it's rather more comprehensive.  Anyway - hold fire.  I'll see if I can find it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

It took me forever to get back here.  Something's seriously wrong with this new system Harti. In any event John - here are those links.
Again - all the best.  Let us know if you do a replication.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766)

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on January 15, 2012, 01:41:05 PM
True Electrical Units (http://www.members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/ELECTRICITY.htm)

Gravock
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on January 15, 2012, 03:00:40 PM
Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 Ampère is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad

By using the true electrical units, this hidden factor, which has been the author of confusion, is now clearly exposed.

q = kg.
A = m/s^2
Z = seconds

Energy, work, quantity of heat = Joule or qA^2 Z^2 while,
Power, radiant flux = Watt or qA^2 Z

Electromotive force, potential difference = Volt or qA
Electric Current = Amp or AZ

Electric Resistance = Ohm or q/Z
Electric Charge, quantity of E = Coulomb or AZ^2

Gravock

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 15, 2012, 05:01:49 PM

Alternatively we could, perhaps, just stick to that earlier post of yours where you proposed to multiply the voltage across the load with the voltage across the battery to ascertain it's power?

WTF, I proposed no such thing.  ???

Your fundamental problem in all this is that you either don't have the capability to correctly understand and interpret these simple technical diagrams and the salient points being made about them, or you are intentionally trying to cloud them with your nonsense. Which is it?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 15, 2012, 07:19:02 PM
WTF, I proposed no such thing.  ???

Your fundamental problem in all this is that you either don't have the capability to correctly understand and interpret these simple technical diagrams and the salient points being made about them, or you are intentionally trying to cloud them with your nonsense. Which is it?

.99

Golly Poynty Point,
 
You're parading all that exasperation again.  It's becoming seriously repetitive.  But if it helps you to pretend that you can barely tolerate my intellectual incompetence - my willful and deliberate obfuscation - feel free.  I suspect you'll need every trick in the book now.  You'll need to find cause for denying us our claim for your prize.  And you're hoping against hope that a scornful dismissal - may yet cut it.   But it's an unfortunate choice to refer to that curious post of yours.  I doubt it will survive scrutiny.  However.  Since you insist - then I, MOST reluctantly, MUST engage.  Let's see exactly where this argument poynts - no pun intended.  :D >:( 8) ;) :o     

Here's the post
The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component.  ;)

.99

If I can manage the schematic I'll post it later.  Meanwhile.  What you STATE is that the 'electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit.'  If - by this - you're proposing that the potential difference imposed on the circuit materials has an opposite polarity to the applied current flow from the source - then who's arguing?  Therefore -  for instance - if the battery is delivering a POSITIVE current flow - then the measured voltage across the load - the wires - and so on - will be NEGATIVE and vice verse. Again.  Who's arguing?

But then you state that therefore 'when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either: 1) +V x -I, or 2) -V x +I.  Golly.  We know that the watts (dare I use that term?) is determined by the product of the voltage across the battery supply - in the schematic example that you use -  and the direction of that current flow through the circuit (per second and so on).  AND.  You've agreed that IF the voltage measured across the circuit components is negative then you can put MONEY on it that the current flow is POSITIVE.  BUT YET?  With a 'flick of the wrist - so to speak - with a tan tan tara - with all the flamboyance of a magician - pulling the rabbit out the hat - you THEN propose that that current flow must be given a NEGATIVE VALUE. There it is.  As written in your first example.  1) +V x -I.

AND.  As if that's not enough!  You do it AGAIN - A SECOND TIME - to include a second option.  That - 2) - V x + I? What can I say?  What can any of us say?  Except that if this is a serious proposal then - you are grossly unaware of your own contradiction. OR. You've somehow managed to GROSSLY underestimate - what we both know - is my rather average intelligence. 

I put it to you Poynty Point - that the direction that current flows is ALWAYS consistent with the polarity of the applied voltage form its source. Therefore IF the voltage is positive then the current flow is positive.  And IF the voltage is negative then the current flow is negative.  And if the applied voltage across those circuit components is NOT negative when the flow is positive or correspondingly, if the applied voltage is NOT positive when the flow is negative - then we can all RETHINK the standard model.  It will mean that you have, indeed, discovered something that diametrically contradicts everything that we have all rather come to depend on.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie

added
'in the schematic example that you use'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 15, 2012, 10:36:33 PM
What you are struggling to understand, is quite simple.

Power is conserved in every circuit. The amount of power delivered, is equal to the amount of power dissipated.

Refer to the simple diagram again.

NB. Using the correctly-denoted potentials and direction of current in the circuit as shown, the power in the battery is computed to be a NEGATIVE value (-V x I), and the power in the load is POSITIVE (V x I).

I know this has blown your mind Rosemary, so let me elaborate to make this more clear. The arrows denoting the clockwise direction of the current (RED) is also the direction you travel with your eyes as you are placing your scope probes (positive first, negative next) across each component**. Let's start at the ground potential on the battery negative:

1a) Starting from the ground upward, we see the potential difference across the battery is - to +, or in other words a negative value. So the "V" used to compute PVBAT is a "-V".

1b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, therefore the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PVBAT is a "I".

1c) The battery power then is: PVBAT = -V x I = -W (a negative value!)

2a) Now continuing clockwise from the positive terminal of VBAT, we see the potential difference across the load resistor is + to -, or in other words a positive value. So the "V" used to compute PRLOAD is a "V".
 
 2b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, so once again the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PRLOAD is a "I".
 
 2c) The load power then is: PRLOAD = V x I = W (a positive value opposite to that for PVBAT!)

The values of PVBAT and PRLOAD are equal but opposite in polarity, therefore if we assume no losses in the wiring, the sum of all the powers in any circuit is zero.

Once again in summary, in a circuit where the battery is supplying power, the power computation for the battery will yield a negative value. The loads in any circuit will yield a positive value for the power being dissipated.

Now, since your measurements in your paper yielded a negative value for the battery power, one must conclude that your batteries are on average, supplying power to the circuit.

However, since your scope probes across the battery are placed in reverse according to the polarity dictated by the path your eyes must take as you go around the loop as we just did above, you actually have the opposite result, i.e. one should now conclude that the battery is on average, receiving power from the circuit, because PVBAT would now be positive, and PRLOAD negative.

But alas, your scope probe placement for the battery voltage measurement is at the far end of several feet of battery cable, and the inductance therein is causing your battery voltage measurement to be skewed by the reactive impedance, i.e. phase shift, which has resulted in an incorrect voltage measurement when used to compute the power. Hence, not only is the polarity of PVBAT opposite in your case, the amplitude is wrong as well.

If properly measured, and with polarities accounted for, your battery power computation would yield a result showing that they are indeed supplying a net average of about 30W of power to the load, and yes it would be a negative value.

** As it is not always practical to place your scope probes according to the direction of current, the conventional placement of probes is to have them according to the potential difference across the components as shown. When a CSR is used in the ground leg of the battery, for convenience it's probes are placed in reverse to that of the battery. This all adds to the confusion regarding the polarity of the power in both the battery and loads (the CSR is also considered a load), but the point is to remember that the power polarity of sources and loads is opposite to one another. In cases like Rosemary's it is important not to construe a negative power value as to indicate infinite COP.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 04:08:57 AM
Good gracious.  Poynty Point - WHAT ARE YOU THINKING :o :o :o

When I've finished here, I'll take take the trouble to argue each and every statement that you've referred to in your last post - not because it's deserved - but because I'm ALARMED.  I'm alarmed that no-one is coming forward to say 'POYNTY ARE YOU MAD?'.   Bubba - Gravityblock - HopToad - EVERYONE has a sense of competence when it comes to the definitions of energy.  But they say NOTHING about this nonsense?  Have you FOOLED THEM TOO?  REALLY?  You really BELIEVE this rubbish?  You ACTUALLY, SINCERELY BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID?

Is this why you 'interjected' that curious conversation into your paper - with that poor academic who was relegated to a two-point rather inarticulate protest?  And all he could do was MUMBLE - in heavily edited 'blue' italics?  A novel convention, by the way.   :o   Would that we could all validate our arguments by inventing the existence of a dumbfounded academic.  It would make life so much simpler.  lol.  Golly.  No need to apply logic.  Just take the standard model - throw a lot of confused arguments at it - like coconuts in a coconut shy - and then CLAIM endorsement from an unknown academic?  You're right.  If we did this, then we could, indeed, and very easily, simply turn the standard model of physics UPSIDE DOWN.  It ENTIRELY does away with the need for reason. 

It's STAGGERING.  And then you have the temerity - the bare faced gall - to inform the ENTIRE WORLD that that it is I, Rosemary Ainslie that is fantasizing a new form of physics?  That I'm the VICTIM OF MY IMAGINATION.  Golly.  When all WE'RE doing, by contrast, is to SHOW ACTUAL RESULTS - as required - and measured using conventional protocols - WITHIN the standard model.  And this ONLY to expose a potential that has been somewhat OVERLOOKED. And, may I add,  which, in my modest opinion, has already been argued by both Einstein and Faraday. 

Now.  Poynty.  CONCENTRATE.  For current to flow - it first and ALWAYS requires a SOURCE OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  That potential difference is measured as VOLTAGE.  THEN.  WHEN current is discharged - and provided that there's a path for that discharge - it will BE POSITIVE if THAT VOLTAGE SOURCE IS POSITIVE and it will be NEGATIVE if THAT VOLTAGE SOURCE IS NEGATIVE.  IN OTHER WORDS - it cannot and does not, magically ALTER IT'S POLARITY OR CHARGE - EVER.  Therefore, CORRECTLY - when the current is discharged by that battery in your schematic it is ONLY able to move in one direction through that circuit.  And, as you've correctly shown its directional path then it will be MEASURED as being GREATER THAN ZERO.  Had the VOLTAGE SOURCE applied a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE - then the current would have been LESS THAN ZERO.

I think your confusions - and I'm hoping they ARE confusions and not MISDIRECTIONS  - are based on the convention that determines that current flow is ACTUALLY from the negative terminal of the battery.  BUT.   IF YOU WISH TO APPLY THAT CONVENTION - then, you would also need to argue that the negative current is inducing a POSITIVE VOLTAGE over the circuit material.  And you see this I trust?  As you've shown them - those circuit components will ALL OF THEM - ACTUALLY measure a negatively induced voltage.  NOT a POSITIVE.

Really.  How many ways can you find to bastardise the standard model?  And AGAIN.  How is it that you can then ACCUSE ME OF DOING THIS?  It's no longer funny Poynty Point.  This is getting really serious

Regards,
Rosemary
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 16, 2012, 04:52:10 AM
Nice try Rosemary  ;)

The fact that no one has objected to any points in my post ought to tell you something, and that something is quite contrary to the nonsense you've tried to make it out to be.

Study carefully and UNDERSTAND what is there. But I think we all know you won't, or can't, whatever the case may be.

Carry on Rosemary. But in case you haven't noticed, you've been talking largely to an uncaptivated audience, and I suppose that will remain so.

 ;D .99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 05:06:19 AM
Nice try Rosemary  ;)

The fact that no one has objected to any points in my post ought to tell you something, and that something is quite contrary to the nonsense you've tried to make it out to be.

Study carefully and UNDERSTAND what is there. But I think we all know you won't, or can't, whatever the case may be.

Carry on Rosemary. But in case you haven't noticed, you've been talking largely to an uncaptivated audience, and I suppose that will remain so.

 ;D .99

 8)

Poynt Point - SO IMPATIENT.   :o


I've just had to pop out for a while - just back.  But INDEED.  Unlike you I intend ARGUING your facile nonsense.  And I'm not trying to win a debate here Poynty Point.  There's nothing to debate. 

BRB -   ;D - which I believe is the internet speak for 'be right back'.  And NTSYT by which I mean 'nice to see you there'.  And HGIITICCC - by which I mean - 'how goes it there In The Cold Climes of Canada?'  And.  It's WPYBT.  By which I mean it's 'way past your bed time'. 

Kindest regards,
rosie posie

 :-*

EDITED - just some minor adjustments to my punctuation, spacing adjustments and a repositioning of this edit comment.  Anyway onwards and upwards with that post you're requesting - so sweetly.  And HOLD YOUR BREATH POYNTY POINT.  It's likely to ROCK.
 
And have now edited the edit.  Any to Anyway
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 06:07:54 AM
The trouble with your post is that it's a slew of entirely erroneous deductions based on entirely flawed observations presented with the characteristic heavy handed pomposity that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your agenda.  You're boring me to tears Poynty Point.  I've had to break up these answers into a series of posts and IF they appear to be getting too repetitive - then I'll try and find some means to abbreviate them.

Here's the first list of REFUTATIONS.  Golly.  I don't know why I bother.  It's not as if you're arguing real science.  Anyway.  Here goes.

What you are struggling to understand, is quite simple.

Power is conserved in every circuit. The amount of power delivered, is equal to the amount of power dissipated.
Not actually.  Power is NEVER conserved.  Energy is conserved.  And the amount of CURRENT flow x the applied source VOLTAGE X TIME is the amount of power that may be VARIOUSLY stored or DISSIPATED OVER the circuit components.

Refer to the simple diagram again.

NB. Using the correctly-denoted potentials and direction of current in the circuit as shown, the power in the battery is computed to be a NEGATIVE value (-V x I), and the power in the load is POSITIVE (V x I).
Not actually.  If the source voltage is positive - then the current flow will be positive.  If the source voltage is negative then the current flow will be negative.  The applied voltage across those circuit components MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT the source voltage that induces that current flow.

I know this has blown your mind Rosemary, so let me elaborate to make this more clear.
Not actually.  Pretentious, incorrect and befuddled science does nothing at all to my mind.

first break.

EDITED.  ADDED SOME MUCH NEEDED EMPHASIS.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 06:10:42 AM
second installment.

The arrows denoting the clockwise direction of the current (RED) is also the direction you travel with your eyes as you are placing your scope probes (positive first, negative next) across each component**.
Not actually.  IF I am using a two channel oscilloscope and IF I did not place the probes as you have indicated - then I WOULD NOT be able to read any potential difference at all. 
 
 
1a) Starting from the ground upward, we see the potential difference across the battery is - to +, or in other words a negative value.
Not actually.  The voltage across the battery is represented as a POSITIVE VALUE.  Certainly on every single voltmeter and oscilloscope that I have EVER used.  Regardless as to whether the source supply comprises anions or cations - lead acids or alkaline.
 
 
So the "V" used to compute PVBAT is a "-V".
Not actually.  The 'V' used to compute PVBAT IS ALWAYS "+V".  Unless you also use rather exotic oscilloscope probes?  Perhaps that's the source of your confusions?  I've LOVE to find a battery that shows me a NEGATIVE voltage.  Never seen it.  NO SUCH ANIMAL. 

2nd break

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 06:18:48 AM
3rd installment

1b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, therefore the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PVBAT is a "I".
Not actually.  The direction of current flow will be positive if the battery voltage is positive.  And correspondingly the direction of current flow will be negative if the battery voltage is negative.  NEVER can any supply deliver a current flow in anti phase to it's polarity.  JUST NOT POSSIBLE.  And convention has determined that the battery is REPRESENTED as a positive charge.
 
 
1c) The battery power then is: PVBAT = -V x I = -W (a negative value!)
Not actually.  We've already covered this.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE - USING STANDARD MEASURING EQUIPMENT - to MEASURE A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE.
 
 
2a) Now continuing clockwise from the positive terminal of VBAT, we see the potential difference across the load resistor is + to -, or in other words a positive value. So the "V" used to compute PRLOAD is a "V".

2b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, so once again the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PRLOAD is a "I".
 
2c) The load power then is: PRLOAD = V x I = W (a positive value opposite to that for PVBAT!)
Not actually.  You are confusing the energy over the load with the energy from the battery.  The one is stored and or dissipated.  The other is delivered.
 
3rd installment
 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 06:51:56 AM
4th installment

The values of PVBAT and PRLOAD are equal but opposite in polarity, therefore if we assume no losses in the wiring, the sum of all the powers in any circuit is zero.
Not actually.  It's best to assume NOTHING - especially when such indulgences result in this catastrophic destruction of all reason.

 
Once again in summary, in a circuit where the battery is supplying power, the power computation for the battery will yield a negative value. The loads in any circuit will yield a positive value for the power being dissipated.
Not actually.  Unless you've determined that your battery is first capable of showing a negative potential difference.  NOT POSSIBLE.  IT DEFIES CONVENTION. 
 
 
Now, since your measurements in your paper yielded a negative value for the battery power, one must conclude that your batteries are on average, supplying power to the circuit.
Not actually.  The fact that we computed a negative wattage OVER THE WHOLE CIRCUIT - rather leads one to conclude that we're accessing a second energy supply source.  Self-evidently.  As energy CANNOT simply come out of the blue.

4th break
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 07:06:34 AM
5th installment

However, since your scope probes across the battery are placed in reverse according to the polarity dictated by the path your eyes must take as you go around the loop as we just did above, you actually have the opposite result, i.e. one should now conclude that the battery is on average, receiving power from the circuit, because PVBAT would now be positive, and PRLOAD negative.
Not actually.  That nonsense about the polarity of the probes is presented in the rather reckless attempt at sharing your own rather sad confusions.  The polarity of the probes is IRRELEVANT.  It is the direction of current flow in relation to the applied voltage - that is of significance. What we measure is that the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is less than the amount of energy that is stored and then delivered BACK TO THE BATTERY.  Simple really.  But nonetheless amazing.
 
But alas, your scope probe placement for the battery voltage measurement is at the far end of several feet of battery cable, and the inductance therein is causing your battery voltage measurement to be skewed by the reactive impedance, i.e. phase shift, which has resulted in an incorrect voltage measurement when used to compute the power. Hence, not only is the polarity of PVBAT opposite in your case, the amplitude is wrong as well.
Not actually.  We factor in the impedance - and it makes not a blind bit of difference to our results.  Not only that but your assessment of the length of those wires is positively ABSURD.  And not only that but we can reduce the connections between the batteries to the BAREST ESSENTIALS and YET get those extraordinary gains.

If properly measured, and with polarities accounted for, your battery power computation would yield a result showing that they are indeed supplying a net average of about 30W of power to the load, and yes it would be a negative value.
Not actually.  I've explained this.  There is no such thing in the entire WORLD of science that enables the computation of a negative wattage from a battery supply source.  Not under any conditions AT ALL.  Which is why we are alerting our experts to this anomaly.
 
 
** As it is not always practical to place your scope probes according to the direction of current, the conventional placement of probes is to have them according to the potential difference across the components as shown. When a CSR is used in the ground leg of the battery, for convenience it's probes are placed in reverse to that of the battery. This all adds to the confusion regarding the polarity of the power in both the battery and loads (the CSR is also considered a load), but the point is to remember that the power polarity of sources and loads is opposite to one another. In cases like Rosemary's it is important not to construe a negative power value as to indicate infinite COP.
Nothing wrong with this advice.  INDEED.  NOR DO WE CONSTRUE anything at all.  We are applying CORRECT protocols to the evaluation of power dissipated and delivered.  KINDLY REFER TO OUR PAPER and not YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT OUR PAPER.  Where exactly have we applied any CONVENTIONS THAT ARE NOT ACCORDING TO REQUIRED PROTOCOLS?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 07:20:24 AM
There you go, Poynty Point,

You managed to schedule 16 ENTIRELY erroneous statements and then attempted to present them as IF THEY ARE FACT.  Which is exactly your preferred modus operandi.  WHO TRAINED YOU?  Because you're really good. 

Guys - Poynty's intentions are to confuse the hell out of any reader here and then through those confusions - pretend to the authority to determine anything at all.  Which is EXACTLY why we're challenging him for that prize money.  Until he takes the trouble to FAULT our own paper and not indulge in this rather adventurous excursion into power analysis according to POYNTY POINT - then we'll NEVER qualify for that prize of his.  Which would be a shame.

I challenge you now Poynty - to REFUTE MY REFUTATIONS?  LOL.  Or better still.  Just FAULT THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS APPLIED IN OUR PAPER.  Else, unfortunately - you'll be conceding our claims - BY DEFAULT.

Kindest and best regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 08:15:11 AM
And as a general reminder to you all - here's the extent of our claim.

We are able to generate a continuous current flow through a circuit with a battery that is DISCONNECTED.  We measure an energy that is, therefore, NOT sourced from the battery and that is THAT robust that it is able to take water to boil.  What is more, under certain subtle switching frequencies it is able to operate in booster converter mode.  And what is more - the current through the circuit moves in both directions in the form of an oscillation that appears to BREACH the restrictions presented by the transistors.  And what is more - this is NOT a 'leakage' as implied by Curious Chris because the level of amperage is that high that it would nuke those transistors.  Nor is it the result of capacitance as Poynty is hoping to make you believe - again because capacitance cannot be responsible for inducing that continual flow. 

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE - which, as we all know, has NO RELEVANCE to the standard model.

THEN.  We have detailed all this in a paper - which we are given to understand - will be published in due course.  MEANWHILE - Poynty Point and his minions have been going to considerable trouble to IMPLY and ALLEGE that I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.  Rest assured.  If I have none - then my collaborators most certainly do.  And their qualifications are FAR HIGHER than Poynty Point's qualifications.  He needs must paint me as a FOOL.  He is welcome.  But my foolishness is NOT the issue.  At issue are the DETAILS OF THAT CLAIM.  And unless he can refute them LOGICALLY and with the use of standard protocols - then he is ducking and diving with the outright intention to DENY our claim and DENY his need to award a prize - BOTH.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Again - an edit for emphasis.  LOL.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: aether22 on January 16, 2012, 11:18:57 AM
And as a general reminder to you all - here's the extent of our claim.

We are able to generate a continuous current flow through a circuit with a battery that is DISCONNECTED.  We measure an energy that is, therefore, NOT sourced from the battery and that is THAT robust that it is able to take water to boil.  What is more, under certain subtle switching frequencies it is able to operate in booster converter mode.  And what is more - the current through the circuit moves in both directions in the form of an oscillation that appears to BREACH the restrictions presented by the transistors.  And what is more - this is NOT a 'leakage' as implied by Curious Chris because the level of amperage is that high that it would nuke those transistors.  Nor is it the result of capacitance as Poynty is hoping to make you believe - again because capacitance cannot be responsible for inducing that continual flow. 

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE - which, as we all know, has NO RELEVANCE to the standard model.

THEN.  We have detailed all this in a paper - which we are given to understand - will be published in due course.  MEANWHILE - Poynty Point and his minions have been going to considerable trouble to IMPLY and ALLEGE that I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.  Rest assured.  If I have none - then my collaborators most certainly do.  And their qualifications are FAR HIGHER than Poynty Point's qualifications.  He needs must paint me as a FOOL.  He is welcome.  But my foolishness is NOT the issue.  At issue are the DETAILS OF THAT CLAIM.  And unless he can refute them LOGICALLY and with the use of standard protocols - then he is ducking and diving with the outright intention to DENY our claim and DENY his need to award a prize - BOTH.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Again - an edit for emphasis.  LOL.

It is an extremely impressive result!

I want to replicate it, here is how I believe it works roughly.

The circuit due to various design configurations is either aetherically charged (pretty common) and or has an aetheric current.
With the sudden increase of the electric current the magnetic field grows outwards, as it does so it takes the energized aether (orgone) with it, and electrons are readily transported by moving aether.

This is why Tesla and many since have found electrons being sprayed around the place, also this aetheric shockwave creates a gravity like impulse if it is changing (accelerating/time varying) which is how Morton and Podkletnov both created forces from spark gaps (they both refocused it).

As the current ceases the magnetic field collapses dragging the aether in and carrying with it flux from the environment that can induce energy into an inductor.

Now going back to the aether and electrons, there are many instances of electrons flying through the air, or closing open circuits despite voltages/energies being insufficient and the resulting damage (and danger of beta radiation).

This explains why the current moves through the MOSFET's without damage, I can give examples of others who have found such results, essentially though electrons carried in this way appear to tunnel and slip through with little damage.

Now I am not clear on where the flux is coming from in this circuit, it might be from the inductor coupling to some other part of the circuit or it might be from the environment into the inductor.

I am interested in replication of this circuit, but Rosemarry, you seem more intent to argue with trolls than give details of the right circuit to replicate.  Also is the inductor and resistor one element or 2?

Hopefully I am just being impatient.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 16, 2012, 12:50:11 PM
The fact is: the day who someone will SELF-LOOP the FE gen will be able to win the prize...
I don't even understand why there is not this condition !!!
The ultimate PROOF of the OU existence is SELF-LOOPING., removing that F****NG battery put a buffer cap and let's go to the infinity and beyond...


Even me, that I am an aficionados of Rotoverter and resonant like stuff, I keep a skeptic mind...
I will never applying a device that it can't be self-looped...
Even in my personal theories/Invention I still skeptic...
So if you want to prove anything, try self-loop please...


SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 16, 2012, 02:21:13 PM
Once again, nice try Rosemary.

You've proved nothing at all I'm afraid, other than you can whip up a hell of a bullshit salad when you're hungry enough.

I would encourage you to stick to the arts...you've been gifted in that regard, but in technical aspects such as those you've clumsily ventured into, you're hopelessly lost...actually.

My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.

Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 03:53:31 PM
Golly Poynty Point.  You really need to learn that trick of 'arguing' your case - and not just spewing out a whole lot of gibberish - in the hopes that they sound 'clever'.  And it's not a 'nice try'.  No effort involved.  Just a tedious amount of time. 

But, nonetheless.  Let's go over those arguments - one by one.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply
.    Standard oscilloscopes and sundry volt meters are able to measure a negative voltage at a battery supply source
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative.
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence.
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.

None of which constitutes a valid scientific argument - although as an excursion into a wild illogical kind of lunacy - it most certainly has merit.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 03:56:19 PM
THEREFORE when you state as you do here...
 
Once again, nice try Rosemary.
 You've proved nothing at all I'm afraid, other than you can whip up a hell of a bullshit salad when you're hungry enough.
then I put it to you that the bullshit salad you claim that I'm trying to toss - is actually your own recipe.  It is INDEED - a load of codswallop.
 
 And here ...
 
I would encourage you to stick to the arts...you've been gifted in that regard, but in technical aspects such as those you've clumsily ventured into, you're hopelessly lost...actually.
where you seem to think you can adjudicate my talents - or lack of them?  I'm afraid you're somewhat under qualified. 
 
 And here...
 
My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.
And MY position stands.  Unless you apply those rather quixotic and nonsensical and unscientific parameters - then ACTUALLY, as you put it, OUR CLAIM IS VALID.
 
 We are ALL of us most anxious - to hear a VALID scientific argument to refute our claim.  Unless of course you prefer it that we do YET MORE ANALYSIS on that EXTRAORDINARY document of yours that you keep hoping has put our claim to bed.  Happy to oblige.  It's LONG OVERDUE that our members get familiar with these TACTICS of yours POYNTY POINT.
 
 As ever,
 Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Cloxxki on January 16, 2012, 05:02:05 PM
People, people...
 
What is the efficiency of energy conversion? Yes, it varies, but it's not bad.
So much we know about it. We get pretty good efficiencies, is we set our minds to it.
 
A loop should be possible is there is signficant OU going on in any form of energy, which every the intermediate conversions and by-effects of the technology might be. Light seems to be the most difficult to convert from, motion the easiest? I am far from a specialist on energy conversion, I just observe.
 
Without a full loop as part of the invention, OU is only claimed, not proven.
 
So if you MUST run off a battery, use the output of your technology to charge a battery bank. This bank should first have been well-drained by the technology itself, used as mere input without feedback, and for good measure also other charge draining technologies. Switch batteries, and repeat, and repeat. Of course while still putting out useful work as well, accumulation to a greater and greater figure whille never adding batteries.
 
If you can invent an OU technology bringing more than a dozen percents of OU, you are well capable of looping it. This is also your duty, and should proceed any claim of OU. Forums such as this will offer free advise on how to achieve such a loop. Insulation, direct torque, regeneration, etc.
If you can't loop at this stage, then improve your effiency until you notice that you can keep a large device running on small batteries being switched (electronically) around. Smaller is better.
 
Ad hominem attacks may seem the core of our existence sometimes, but it sure won't bring us OU.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 05:28:03 PM
Hello Cloxxki and Schubert Reiji Maigo,

You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.

Our own technology depends on the standard model.  And in line with this we both predict and measure losses.  All that we're proving is that the energy that is being delivered CANNOT be from the battery supply.  If, as we argue, that energy is coming from the work station of the circuit - from our resistor element - then the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that there is a potential here for the transfer of energy that will GREATLY enhance energy efficiencies.

And we attempt to give a rather detailed account of the thesis in support of this, in the second part of that two-part paper - if you'd care to dip in there.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 05:42:55 PM
And ether

I am not arguing with trolls.  I am trying to get you all to realise that Poynt.99's evaluation of science is absolutely NOT standard.  He has made it his mission on these forums to what he calls 'debunk' claims.  As a result there have been many victims with perfectly valid claims that have fallen to this eccentric motive and equally eccentric methodology of his.   Nor would I care that much - except that I see how effective are his ploys.  Certainly without his direct interventions then those - such as you and even Curious Chris - would have been aware of ours and others good efforts and these technologies would then have ADVANCED.  Meanwhile I see it as REQUIRED that our forum members discover the full extent of those fallacies that he's promoting.

Your own thesis in support of these results is interesting and I realise that echoes of it are repeated everywhere on these forums.  Our own thinking is strictly in terms of the standard model.  I personally would be very reluctant to deviate from this.  It's explained, as mentioned in our previous post - in that second paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Cloxxki on January 16, 2012, 05:58:12 PM
Of course there will be losses. When these are subtracted fromt he energy multification, they should still suffice to be looped back to source, and leave some amount of output available for useful work. Be it keep the tea water warm indefinately, or powering a train that just goes around in circles and won't stop until the wheels come off.

Let's say it is established that a battery can over give 100 united of electric energy.
If you get 200 of heat out, then that's amazing.
Spend 50 on conversion losses (somewhat pessimistic for cutting edge technology), get 150 units of EE out.
50 units are used for powering a downgeared crane, lifting a very large weight.
100 are used to keep the battery charged.
 
Simplicistic yes, and room to wiggle, but this is my current view burden of proof for overunity.
Any thing less is only trying to reach the level of a pendulum with a magnetic pivot bearing swinging inside a vacume chamber.
 
Unless you can't or won't loop, you'll be only in the race for brightest AA powered bicycle light, best AA powered drumming bunny, efficient water heater (everyone has 2 or 3 of those in various forms), etc. OU has nothing to do with it.
Any type of energy can be converted. We humans are masters at it. If you get enough of the one, you can make enough of the other. Looping takes away the need for measurement discussions. Does YOUR car run forever on half a charge? Loop it, end discussion, and see Avenue Albert Einstein be renamed to yours. Even Tesla Square.
 
If you're not getting enough output to dream of looping it, yet claim OU, you're obviously going to be in a measurements discussion, or better: be ignored. Just 10% OU for instance, that's going to be pretty hard to loop. Will require the pinnacle in energy conversion to loop with significant output. It's not impossible though, and shall be your next step towards realizing OU. 10%, that's something I'd fight for.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 16, 2012, 06:13:09 PM
Cloxxki - If its burden of proof you're looking for then maybe it should be in that the batteries outperform their watt hour rating?  And  we MOST ASSUREDLY prove that.  We also PROVE that there is an energy supply potential in the material of the circuit components themselves that has, heretofore, been somewhat neglected.  IF indeed that claim is valid - then, theoretically - we should be able to enhance efficiencies WELL beyond nuclear efficiencies.

I modestly propose that this may be a good start.

But actually Cloxxki - I think this technology of ours is already outmoded.  What Rossi has got in his E-cat is way more than enough to meet our energy concerns.  I am only trying to focus the attention here on the the agenda that flirts behind every hopeful claimant.  It's led by the Poynty's of this world.  Who knows?  Instead of feeding some pack dogs their daily kill - we could actually get round to discussing science.  I know that this small departure of Poynt's is a FIRST.  Hopefully he'll keep to the argument - in between those noisy complaints he makes against my intelligence, lack of comprehension, madness, delusions and whatnot.

Kindest again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 16, 2012, 08:44:58 PM
Thank you for responce Rosemary,


Quote
You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.



A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...


You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)


SRM.
         
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Cloxxki on January 16, 2012, 11:29:06 PM
SRM, you got it.
COP 17 is too easy an example even.
I wonder which is the lowest number for every given input and output media that would be considered loopable.
COP 3? If you had it, could you loop it? Battery power in, heat out. Have a steam fanatic build the ultimate steam-to-EP generator. With Stirling sub-circuit to suck the last bit of energy out of the steam. Super insulated systems with aerogel. I bet a true COP 2 (could be simulated) could be looped with a bit of useful work being done.
Thinking of cars and the most basic HHO on demand. If you get only get COP (or Faraday's limit) x1.5 , a few percents of you engine power goes to the wheels. The rest goes to a huge alternator, sucking up >90% of output, to be able to send back in the full 100% needed. A supercar engine of 800bhp would be loud, and make very few miles to the gallon of water, but it would net a decent city car's performance. I'd totally accept that as OU. A loud, water thirsty engine that barely gets a small car going. Seriously.


Rosemary,
e-Cat is great, and I tend to believe this or similar technology is a possibility. There's bound to be some matter on earth that's just not settled on the lowest energy level, just like not every rock has fallen off it mountain yet.
e-Cat will not win the OU award money though, as far as I remember the rules?


Until we all have a $500 e-Cat securing our household power supply for years on end, all the power companies out of business, there is reason to keep researching. e-Cat need to be prodeced also. There may be cleaner and cheaper power out there still. It may be wind or solar.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 02:04:29 AM
Thank you for responce Rosemary,

A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...

You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)

SRM.

Hello again Schubert Reiji Maigo

Just a small point.  I have difficulties addressing people by their initials.  Fact is I have difficulty addressing anyone at all by a pseudonym - which is the preferred convention on these forums.  I'm sort of compromising here - but is your name Schubert?  And then can I use that instead of your initials?  Just a small thing.  But it would save me a good 5 minutes embroiled in this ridiculous internal debate every time I answer your posts.

In any event.  Your points are entirely valid.  But there are a couple of downsides to our own technology that needs to be addressed.  We have only generated upwards of 100 watts.  IF we are to reach significant levels to take this technology to application, then we would need to prove that we can produce mega watts - as does Andrea Rossi.  To do this we need to generate a voltage across those transistors that, in turn, have a tolerance measured in the 10 000 volt range.  Thus far - they're not available to the market.  And if we used any transistor that does not have that intrinsic body diode - then we would need to embark on an entirely new path and explore the efficacy of applying external diodes.  Again.  It's probably doable.  BUT.  It would involve me, personally, in yet more experimentation and I have very little appetite or interest in this side of things.  More to the point.  I have also 'run out of budget'.  But even more to the point is that my interest is in 'thesis' which is my only overarching obsession.  Frankly - experimentation bores me to tears.  Which is where I kept hoping that all you talented experimentalists would take over the question and develop the required. 

Which is NOT to say that there is no merit or indeed, no 'need' to get familiar with the thesis.  You see.  Unless the thinking behind this energy is more fully understood - then we are all trying to make our way in the dark.  Just stabbing at possibilities.  Nothing actually understood.  Not an easy way to progress a new science that clearly NEEDS to be progressed.  What we have managed is to take existing proof of Dark Energy and locate this dark 'matter' in a 'field'.  But 'field' theory has never been fully developed or explored.  It has been mathematically JUSTIFIED by our string theorists.  But their math is obscure - even to qualified mathematicians.  And their reliance is on a fixed and immovable 'structure' rather than the highly charged highly mobile structure that we require in terms of our magnetic field model.  Hopefully, in due course, these questions will be addressed.  In fact I'm reasonably satisfied that this will soon become the full focus of our new physics.  ether - has already hinted at this.  And by his chosen 'nom de plume' it's likely he realises that this is the aether energy that was required by Tesla - and indeed - many of you here.  But that 'thinking' is considered eccentric if it is not incorporated into the standard model.  Which is where our own small contribution may have assisted this general drive.  Because we rely on this.  There is no marked departure of our proposals from KNOWN physics.

For some reason that is possibly better understood by Poynty - there is a neurotic frenzy to deny this.  BUT to deny it requires the outright dismissal of the thesis, the experimental proof of the thesis and the rather PUBLIC denouncement of my qualifications to comment.  The attack has been at all those levels.  And since I cannot personally take this product to significant market application - then I haven't minded that much.  UNTIL NOW.  When I realise that EVEN IN THE FACE OF ROSSI'S remarkable breakthroughs - these efforts in DENIAL not only persist - but they persist effectively.  I REALLY assumed that, for once, our 'nay sayers' would TAKE NOTE.  They haven't.  They're still at it.  And I now intend to challenge them ON THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS - that over unity AT ITS LEAST is ACKNOWLEDGED.  And I'm NOT equipped to argue Rossi's technology.  But I'm overqualified to argue my own.  Which is why I've revived this thread.

I do hope that's made it clearer.  If you - or anyone at all - wishes to progress this technology of ours - that may be a very good thing.  As Cloxxki says.  Any progress will only improve the situation.  But I - personally - must pass.  My mission now is to challenge our nay sayers on their own grounds and as it relates to our own evidence.  You have, many of you here, all presumed - for far too long now - that there's no proof of over unity.  This is wrong.  We have AMPLE proof.  I intend making you all aware of that fact.  That unity barrier has indeed been breached.  In fact it's a broken artifact that needs to be housed in a museum.  It has absolutely no further relevance except as an interesting theoretical constraint imposed - for too long - on our science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on January 17, 2012, 02:29:19 AM
Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity. As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP. You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home. At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 02:36:05 AM
Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity. As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP. You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home. At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.

TK   ;D - HOW NICE IS THIS?

It's always a comfort to me to see that you're concentrating on my history.  And INDEED - I've learned MUCH.  Golly. 

Did Ramset get hold of you?  He needs you to adjudicate in yet another 'debunk' related to cavitation? energy? - something?  He seems to think that you'd be the best choice to advance this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

By the way.  Did you read those arguments against Poynty Point.  I've rather made mincemeat of his nonsense.  Did he ask you to come to his rescue?  I fully understand why.

 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 03:35:35 AM
Now, TinselKoala - lest you think I'm ducking the issue - let me explain this again.

Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity.
IF I do NOT understand how to measure the energy flowing in a circuit - then rest assured.  My collaborators do.  And they have endorsed the measurements based on the data from our oscilloscopes.
As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP.
I've explained this.  In that paper.  We do NOT recharge the battery.  What we manage is to NOT DISCHARGE IT.  The assumption is that we can get an endless supply of current flow.  IF ONLY.  But to do that we'd need to perform feats of magic.  IF, as we propose, current flow actually comprises the material of a magnetic particle - then the downside is that particle cannot 'give birth' to more and more particles - which would be required - if we were ever to simply recharge more and more batteries.  For some reason, TinselKoala, you are expecting us to perform FEATS OF MAGIC.  We are, all of us collaborators, mere mortals.  We cannot therefore oblige.
You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.
This is uncharacteristically obtuse.  What are you complaining about?  That I'm prevaricating - when I have explained PRECISELY why we not only CANNOT comply - but would not be able to - under any conditions whatsoever.  It exceeds our claim and is - in my opinion - beyond the capabilities of a mere mortal to perform.  I have NEVER changed the definition of an 'over unity' device.  There is nothing ambiguous about the term to require definition - in the first place.  And how can you say that our device is not able to power anything?  We've taken water to boil from batteries that are entirely disconnected to the circuit which technically means that they should be incapable of delivering energy.
It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home.
I've explained this.  I cannot run my household appliances on 100 watts.  Just NOT DOABLE.
At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.
THANK YOU TK.  Nice to see that you acknowledge my personal progress.  You see how I apply myself?  You should try it.  Does wonders for the soul.

Kindest regards again,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 03:53:37 AM
And BTW (by the way)  8) just to get the record straight.  We have submitted a total of 5 papers to the IEEE.  ONLY 1 WAS EVER REJECTED - and that was closely followed by an appeal to RESUBMIT.

You're casting those 'nasturtiums' - TinselKoala.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think you had an agenda.

But kindest regards, nonetheless
Rosie


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 07:14:41 AM
And to all of you who read here - PLEASE feel free to comment.  But here's the reminder.  I am NOT about to perform any more tests until I do this for Poynty Point, Harti and Steven E Jones.  And then it will simply be a repeat of the 4 tests that were shown in our paper.

I am more than happy to answer any concerns related to errors of measurement - especially if those concerns have not been answered in our paper.  If we've overlooked something then we most certainly need to look into it. 

And on this side of over unity claims - I would strongly urge any of you who want to - to try and put our apparatus together.  It does not need to have the PRECISE resistor.  I personally know of it being applied to a solder iron, a bank of LED's and even a standard shop bought 1000 watt ceramic resistor.  And a duplication of that oscillating waveform, is very easy to replicate.  The minute you find this - then you are looking at the evidence of a current that has NOT been generated by the battery supply source - regardless of the measurements.  I assure you all.  You will be surprised.  If you configure the circuit as Harti has recommended - with a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of the FETs you will get a continuous oscillation for the duration - which oscillation is NOT parasitic.  It's TOO STRONG to be explained away so easily.

The only thing I would add is that - while it is relatively easy to find that waveform - it is not always easy to establish the measurements.  To get it to the required NEGATIVE wattage value - then you really need to fine tune it.  And for that, unfortunately, we need sophisticated instruments. - So, if you're game, ether22 or anyone at all - this is NOT a black art.  It's a really simple circuit configuration.  And you can generate that oscillation EASILY

And on the other side of over unity claims - those healthy sceptics amongst you all - the MR MAGS and the like - then I recommend that you try the same. Certainly before you deny the evidence which we've gone to such lengths to record.  And please remember that it takes very little effort to publicly denounce anything at all.  But one hopes for a modicum of impartiality here on these forums else we'll be working AGAINST what may well be a new science - related to new insights. And all this may then ADVANCE rather than REGRESS our global best interests - and INDEED the best interests of science itself.  It helps NOTHING to simply dismiss the evidence for the hell of it.  That's not science.  That's medieval. 

And then for the balance of you.  That small but very noisy minority - who SHOUT their denials with rather less restraint than they should.  I put it to you that you have all been monopolising our scientific commentary to the detriment of a new science and at the cost of any reasonable analysis.  It will ALWAYS be a tribute to the efforts of these forums that so many people have had the COURAGE to challenge conventional science on its own terms.  Experimental evidence.  It is ABSOLUTELY a first - in our scientific history.  And I fondly believe that it's awakened an interest in this field of energy that has been outlawed - historically - by our own academics.  Therefore.  With the utmost respect.  IF you feel compelled to comment on whatever grounds at all - BUT ESPECIALLY when you offer PRIZES for evidence of breach - then I would strongly recommend that your ANALYSIS REMAIN APPROPRIATE TO SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOLS - and not to the SUPRIOUS RUNNING COMMENTARY about the character, stupidity or credentials of the proposer.  JUST STICK TO SCIENCE.  It would be enormously gratifying.  And it would be some tribute to the respect that one hopes you have for the proud history of science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 17, 2012, 12:03:05 PM
Hello again you can just call me Schubert (It's the name of great composer since I'm pianist...) and Reiji Maigo something like Midnight's Child (a fictional apparatus in a Japanese Manga that can produce unlimited spiritual energy, it recharge itself every midnight...) It's a perpetual motion machine...


To respond to your earlier comment: Have you tried to hook up for example 5 heater in parallel the five heater will produce 500 watts, As I recall correctly you can find as low 150-200 watts Stirling engine...




In any case good luck to your research !!!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on January 17, 2012, 12:43:22 PM
Good gracious.  Poynty Point - WHAT ARE YOU THINKING :o :o :o

When I've finished here, I'll take take the trouble to argue each and every statement that you've referred to in your last post - not because it's deserved - but because I'm ALARMED.  I'm alarmed that no-one is coming forward to say 'POYNTY ARE YOU MAD?'.   Bubba - Gravityblock - HopToad - EVERYONE has a sense of competence when it comes to the definitions of energy.  But they say NOTHING about this nonsense?  Have you FOOLED THEM TOO?  REALLY?  You really BELIEVE this rubbish?  You ACTUALLY, SINCERELY BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID?

Rosemary,

Thanks for the invite and for including me in this discussion.

Using the right hand and pointing the thumb in the direction of the moving positive charge or positive current and the fingers in the direction of the magnetic field the resulting force on the charge points outwards from the palm. The force on a negatively charged particle is in the opposite direction. If both the speed and the charge are reversed then the direction of the force remains the same. For that reason a magnetic field measurement (by itself) cannot distinguish whether there is a positive charge moving to the right or a negative charge moving to the left. (Both of these cases produce the same current.) On the other hand, a magnetic field combined with an electric field can distinguish between these, such as the Hall effect.

Until this distinction is made, then I have nothing more to say about this nonsense.

Now, more to the point.  Why didn't you notice that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity relative to the true units?  How can this be?  Acceleration is the root core of velocity (acceleration * time).  The c in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 hasn't been reduced to acceleration * time.  Also, E=mc^2 states that it is light which has the velocity.  This is the inverse of reality.  Equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

A = Gravitational Acceleration
 Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
 A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)
 
 In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;
 
 Wavelength  *  Frequency  =  Speed of Gravity
 AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ
 
 is parallel to
 
 Gravitational Acceleration  x  Orbit Time  =  Speed of Gravity
 A * Z   =   AZ
 
 The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.
 
 In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z).  When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A).  Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)
 
 Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2)  x  earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year)  =  the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s). 
 
 The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2
 
 The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time
 
 A monumental law in True and Pure Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always contain and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

Gravock
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on January 17, 2012, 01:33:34 PM
Hi folks, Hi rose, I notice you say that leds can be used with the pulse circuit.
Is that all that was in the circuit or was an inductor in line also or inductive resistor, I am guessing some kind of inductance is needed to get an oscillation, thanks.
I remember these discussions over at EF awhile ago.


If the intent is to prevent a flamed discussion, then I would suggest not throwing fuel on the fire.  ;)
peace love light
tyson :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 02:41:08 PM
Dear Schubert,

I must thank you for that introduction to Reiji Maigo.  I've been reading up on it in wiki.  How INTRIGUING.  I'll look around to find more on this subject. And thanks for resolving my dilemma. Schubert will do nicely.  I have a friend who's  named her son 'Beethoven'. It's so nice.

Regarding this ...
To respond to your earlier comment: Have you tried to hook up for example 5 heater in parallel the five heater will produce 500 watts, As I recall correctly you can find as low 150-200 watts Stirling engine...
'No' is the short answer.  But I think I see your point.  In other words we simply put more resistors in parallel?  Is that right?  Would they work off the same switch?  That Q array?  Because then my concern is that with so much current, those transistors would melt.  But either way.  I do not have the interest nor the time nor the money.  Perhaps it's something you could explore - if you're up for it.  Unfortunately I must pass.  I'm reasonably satisfied that there's a solution.  But I certainly won't be finding it.

Most intrigued with that 'fable'.  I keep going back to it.  I'll need to get some of those books. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 03:17:52 PM
My dear Gravock,

I puzzled over your previous table - and am bowled over by this last post of yours.  Clearly we're dealing with some heavy duty intellect.  Golly.  I absolutely cannot make sense of it.  But I nonetheless acknowledge that this is a significant contribution.  Rare INDEED, that we have members who share such extraordinary insights. 

Regarding my complaint against Poynty.  I am well aware of the niceties of a charged property to current flow.  That, after all, is the basis of my thesis.  But - as I understand it - the standard model does NOT allow for a charged property in an electric current. EVER.  In fact,  all convention has determined is that current flows in the direction of the greatest applied potential difference.  All potential difference is relative.  But convention has ALSO determined that a battery supplies a positive voltage.  Therefore, relative to that, then the resulting flow of current over the circuit material - will be positive.  For some reason best understood by himself - Poynty proposes that this current must be computed as a negative current because the measured voltage across the load is negative.  Which is nonsense and an entire travesty on standard measurement protocols.  That induced voltage over the circuit components will make not a blind bit of difference to the direction of current flow from the battery.  Unless and until the circuit is open - the battery is disconnected - and the collapsing fields can then generate that negative current flow - which is then consistent with this applied NEGATIVE voltage. 

But I don't think you're arguing.  And regarding all this?  I am absolutely in awe Gravock.  I'm posting the whole thing as a tribute to your work here - but I must confess.  It is way over my head.

Now, more to the point.  Why didn't you notice that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity relative to the true units?  How can this be?  Acceleration is the root core of velocity (acceleration * time).  The c in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 hasn't been reduced to acceleration * time.  Also, E=mc^2 states that it is light which has the velocity.  This is the inverse of reality.  Equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

A = Gravitational Acceleration
 Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
 A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)
 
 In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;
 
 Wavelength  *  Frequency  =  Speed of Gravity
 AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ
 
 is parallel to
 
 Gravitational Acceleration  x  Orbit Time  =  Speed of Gravity
 A * Z   =   AZ
 
 The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.
 
 In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z).  When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A).  Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)
 
 Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2)  x  earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year)  =  the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s). 
 
 The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2
 
 The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time
 
 A monumental law in True and Pure Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always contain and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

Gravock
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 17, 2012, 03:26:51 PM
Dear Schubert,

I must thank you for that introduction to Reiji Maigo.  I've been reading up on it in wiki.  How INTRIGUING.  I'll look around to find more on this subject. And thanks for resolving my dilemma. Schubert will do nicely.  I have a friend who's  named her son 'Beethoven'. It's so nice.


Ahah, sorry but Schubert it's not my name, just my pseudo. If you want to call me by my true name it's Jonathan !!!


Just that i'am fan of classical music and Japanese culture (especially their comics).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You all right the transistor would be melted, but sorry can't test your idea at this time because i'am on another project (Transverter or Resonant Magnetic amplifier).


Problem in real life you can't make everything at the same time, else, you fail !!!


Regards Jonathan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Schubert - good heavens.  I'm well aware of the fact that this is not your actual name.  You said as much.  You explained that it was appropriate simply because you are a pianist.  Golly

Among Zimbabwians  - there's a rich tradition of naming ones children after exotic historical personalities - which is why I mentioned Beethoven.  lol.  There are other names.  Saint Theresa - Winston Churchill - Clever Girl - and on and on.  It's possibly not as prevalent now as it was when I was young.  But it's charming.
 

Ahah, sorry but Schubert it's not my name, just my pseudo. If you want to call me by my true name it's Jonathan !!!
Just that i'am fan of classical music and Japanese culture (especially their comics).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You all right the transistor would be melted, but sorry can't test your idea at this time because i'am on another project (Transverter or Resonant Magnetic amplifier).

Problem in real life you can't make everything at the same time, else, you fail !!!
Regards Jonathan.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 03:51:47 PM
Hi folks, Hi rose, I notice you say that leds can be used with the pulse circuit.
Is that all that was in the circuit or was an inductor in line also or inductive resistor, I am guessing some kind of inductance is needed to get an oscillation, thanks.
I remember these discussions over at EF awhile ago.

If the intent is to prevent a flamed discussion, then I would suggest not throwing fuel on the fire.  ;)
peace love light
tyson :)

Hello tyson,

Nice to hear from you again.  INDEED.  Nothing other than those LED's but arranged in two banks to take both directional flows.  Surprisingly it only works in the one direction but it's ON continuously.  No breaks - no flickering.  And the beauty of this test is that it does not need heavy duty current.  Plenty of questions related to the 'flow of current' though.  But test it out.  It's easy enough.

I definitely DO NOT want flaming ever.  But nor do I want to ignore some really bad science adjudicating our experiments.  Which, I fondly believe, can be resolved by 'DISCUSSION'.  One does not have to AGREE with another person.  That's not the point of our forums.  But nor does one need to resort to 'hate speech' when an argument can really only be resolved with reason and logic.   And a bit of politeness also helps.

Golly tyson.  I do hope you don't also think that I'm that 'high heeled troll' that is bandied about.  I prefer to think that I'm quintessentially reasonable.

 ;D

Kindest as ever, and really nice to see you around.
Rosie

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on January 17, 2012, 05:34:16 PM
A new replication by Woopy !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9PL7ioHFWY

He is getting nice negative current spikes flowing back tp the power supply.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 17, 2012, 07:57:15 PM
A new replication by Woopy !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9PL7ioHFWY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9PL7ioHFWY)

He is getting nice negative current spikes flowing back tp the power supply.

Bravo Woopy,

That was very well managed.  Very clear commentary and very well filmed.  You are, indeed, a gentleman and a scholar.  What a pleasure to see you showing us your experimental skills.

And thank you Harti for alerting us to this.

Kindest and best
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on January 17, 2012, 09:52:26 PM
Hi folks, Hi rose, thanks for sharing the information.
I have a basic stamp 2 microcontroller that I was using to test M. Jones tesla switch and can use it to pulse mosfets, pulse width is very adjustable by computer programming it, down to 2 microsecond pulse width.
I may give a try and see what i can see.

Troll, please, even if you were, doesn't bother me, live and let live.
Though I have direct experiential proof, that in my own life, when we focus or feed an energy, it increases.
peace love light
tyson ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: woopy on January 17, 2012, 10:51:28 PM
Hi Rosemary

First of all, i wish you and your team ,a happy new and continous succesfull year  in your research and work. :)

Thank's for compliments, but i am not sure to merit them because i simply replicate your very clear shematic and try to understand what is going on.

I was impressed by the simplicity of this replication, which gave almost at once really  interesting results, (the negative current wave curve).Which is very encouraging

So now i am thinking of using battery to avoid the power supply which seems not able to manage the negative current (not made for this).

And also i will probably have to invest in a more powerfull Signal Gen because mine is really a basic  one.

And perhaps i can  make a 555 square pulse, when i know the frequency and dutycycle for my setup.

Anyway thank's for sharing


@ Stephan

yep man your are faster than light, a real neutrino ;)

Thank's for posting my video link before i did it.

I will try your suggestion anyway, as usual.


good luck at all

Laurent

just as a remember    http://youtu.be/f9PL7ioHFWY
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 18, 2012, 12:52:16 AM
Dear Laurent,

Clearly this circuit is intriguing you.  Personally I'm delighted that you're doing these tests.  It's easily managed with a 555.  And you don't really need to apply a hefty power source.  Smaller outputs are easily managed - from smaller batteries.  If you use a 555 you'll be in the happy position of being able to apply a continuous negative signal at the gate. 

When it comes to 'fine tuning' you really need to do the math.  I have a friend who was telling me about an extraordinary little oscilloscope that he bought.  He's away at the moment but is back by the weekend.  I'll let you know more.  It may be more easily accessed in Europe (which I guess is where you're from).  And it's already relatively inexpensive here in South Africa.  I'll let you know.

So Woopy.  Well done and welcome on board.  Very pleased and flattered that you're working on this.

Kindest and best regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 18, 2012, 01:47:29 AM
Dear Poynty Point,

With reference to this statement of yours...
Once again, nice try Rosemary.
I explained that my exposure of your fallacies took no effort and that it was simply a waste of time.  What I HIGHLIGHTED was that your arguments against our claim are based on a slew of rather adventurous and illogical postulates that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to deny our claim.  Bearing in mind that you may have overlooked this post - let me schedule that list of your counter arguments -  AGAIN - lest you try very hard to disassociate yourself from them.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved  :o
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current  ???
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply  :-[
.    In defiance of convention it is preferred to measure a negative voltage across a battery supply  ::)
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow  :'(
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over  8)
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols  :o
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative  :'(
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy  :-X
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery in order to manage a negative wattage  :-[
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference  8)
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence  8) 8)
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.  :o 8) :'(


 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

So.  In the light of this comment from you...
My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.
then my problems are manifold.  If you require me to apply YOUR LOGIC then I could, with a wide freedom of choice impose any result I choose on my data.  And while that may satisfy your agenda - it would hardly stand up to scrutiny in the academic world.  And that's where our paper is focused.  Alternatively, I could apply the required measurement protocols AS INDEED WE DO - and then I would not satisfy your qualification requirements for your prize.  You see for yourself.  I am between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

And as for this...
Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.
I AM MOST HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.  INDEED.  I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A FULL DEMONSTRATION OF OUR DEVICE.  But you see this Poynty Point?  What earthly good would there be in showing you the evidence when you seem more than prepared to DENY the evidence?  You have now given us to understand that you will impose your own math.  And it's not only in the miscount of the numbers of readers of this thread that you show a rather poor aptitude for this.  It's also grossly evidenced in those arguments of yours that you're trying so hard to make us all believe.

Help me out here Poynty.  We're trying to progress this technology.  It would be a crying shame to think that you could suppress this by simply denying our very easily demonstrable results.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

edited.  Added the word 'by'.   ::)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 18, 2012, 03:46:48 AM
A question for Rosemary:

What polarity of voltage do you need to apply to the Gate (Gate to Source really) of an N-channel MOSFET to turn it ON?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 18, 2012, 06:00:34 AM
A question for Rosemary:

What polarity of voltage do you need to apply to the Gate (Gate to Source really) of an N-channel MOSFET to turn it ON?

.99

Hello Poynty Point,  yet again.

I'm rather hoping that the day will come when you'll follow my impeccable example and actually address your questions to me directly. I've just woken up - at the respectable hour of 6.30 am - which is the first for a LONG TIME.  Which means that if I factor in the three hours where I was awake - roughly between the hours of 1 and 3.45 - that I've slept a TOTAL of 10 hours or thereby.  Which is AMAZING.  So nice to tackle these keyboards with my fingers relaxed by an entire sufficiency of - SLEEP.  What a pleasure.  It's a state of consciousness that I can rarely indulge.

Now Poynty Point - I suspect talk of my insomnia may not be of interest to you.  I only reference it as it seems that I have taken a relatively long time to get back here.  So.  Back to your question.  Actually I'm not sure that I'm BRAVE enough to answer it at all.  I'm inclined to think that you're in the process of springing a 'trap' of sorts.   It seems LOADED with SUGGESTION.  There's the implicit  suggestion that I've boobed. Somewhere?  And for the life of me I can't think where?

I suppose, under the circumstances I'll just have to confess that I don't understand your terminology.  IS A MOSFET ACTUALLY SWITCHED ON when it opens or when it closes the circuit?   Clarify that and then I'll be able to point you to our part two of our paper - where I explain ALL in very clear terms. Meanwhile may I remind you that there's a couple of questions that I've also posed.  And unlike mine, they can't be explained by your 'paper' if such it is.  They ARE your paper.

Take care Poynty.  And if this is all being written while you're asleep - then I trust you sleep well.  You see this?  I'm setting an example all over the place.  Unlike you - I do not need to endorse my argument against you by also flaunting a disproportionate dislike of you.  I keep my feelings where they belong.  And then I just exercise COURTESY AND RESTRAINT.  It's easy when you get the hang of it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
 :D

EDITED - the paragraphing. 
and changed the word 'spent' to 'slept'
Actually a whole lot of relatively minor things as well.  Too boring to list.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 18, 2012, 06:34:48 AM
FYI,

"Gate" and "Vgs" (voltage gate-to-source) and "Source" is not my terminology. It has existed since the time MOSFETs came to being.

A MOSFET is considered ON when a significant current can pass through from the Drain to Source leads. This is standard electrical theory of operation of MOSFETs, not my invention. Now, this current is current that is flowing through the MOSFET channel, NOT through the parasitic Drain-Source (body) diode.

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 18, 2012, 06:39:48 AM
Dear Poynty,

I have no objection to the use of the terms "Gate" and Vgs (voltage gate -to-source) and "source".  I am well aware of the fact that they were not invented by you.  Nor is that what I asked.  You asked me - from memory - 'what voltage TURNED ON the switch at the gate'?  My question stands.  WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'TURNING ON'?

Let me try this again.  Is the MOSFET ON when it's OPEN or ON when it's closed?  was my question

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie


FYI,

"Gate" and "Vgs" (voltage gate-to-source) and "Source" is not my terminology. It has existed since the time MOSFETs came to being.

A MOSFET is considered ON when a significant current can pass through from the Drain to Source leads. This is standard electrical theory of operation of MOSFETs, not my invention. Now, this current is current that is flowing through the MOSFET channel, NOT through the parasitic Drain-Source (body) diode.

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99

edited - for clarification.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 18, 2012, 06:48:27 AM
And lest we lose touch with some of my own questions - here they are again.

Dear Poynty Point,

With reference to this statement of yours...
Once again, nice try Rosemary.
I explained that my exposure of your fallacies took no effort and that it was simply a waste of time.  What I HIGHLIGHTED was that your arguments against our claim are based on a slew of rather adventurous and illogical postulates that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to deny our claim.  Bearing in mind that you may have overlooked this post - let me schedule that list of your counter arguments -  AGAIN - lest you try very hard to disassociate yourself from them.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved  :o
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current  ???
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply  :-[
.    In defiance of convention it is preferred to measure a negative voltage across a battery supply  ::)
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow  :'(
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over  8)
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols  :o
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative  :'(
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy  :-X
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery in order to manage a negative wattage  :-[
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference  8)
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence  8) 8)
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.  :o 8) :'(


 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

So.  In the light of this comment from you...
My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.
then my problems are manifold.  If you require me to apply YOUR LOGIC then I could, with a wide freedom of choice impose any result I choose on my data.  And while that may satisfy your agenda - it would hardly stand up to scrutiny in the academic world.  And that's where our paper is focused.  Alternatively, I could apply the required measurement protocols AS INDEED WE DO - and then I would not satisfy your qualification requirements for your prize.  You see for yourself.  I am between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

And as for this...
Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.
I AM MOST HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.  INDEED.  I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A FULL DEMONSTRATION OF OUR DEVICE.  But you see this Poynty Point?  What earthly good would there be in showing you the evidence when you seem more than prepared to DENY the evidence?  You have now given us to understand that you will impose your own math.  And it's not only in the miscount of the numbers of readers of this thread that you show a rather poor aptitude for this.  It's also grossly evidenced in those arguments of yours that you're trying so hard to make us all believe.

Help me out here Poynty.  We're trying to progress this technology.  It would be a crying shame to think that you could suppress this by simply denying our very easily demonstrable results.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 18, 2012, 06:52:05 AM
With regard to your terminology, "ON" would be "CLOSED" (a path to conduct current).

"OFF" is therefore "OPEN" (no, or very limited path to conduct current).

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 18, 2012, 06:54:51 AM
Well then?  Where has this been challenged in our paper? 

With regard to your terminology, "ON" would be "CLOSED" (a path to conduct current).

"OFF" is therefore "OPEN" (no, or very limited path to conduct current).

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 18, 2012, 07:03:04 AM

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99

I think I'm beginning to see the THRUST of you question here Poynty point.  Well.  What can I say?  If I say that it's the applied voltage that determines the 'on' or 'off' condition of the MOSFET - then I'll have to also argue how it is that MOSFET can conduct a current from a positive voltage at all while it is open - or as you call it - OFF?  I've explained this in that second part of our 2-part paper.  And I've found the solution in the imposition of a 'charge property' to current itself.  That entirely resolves the issue.  Please feel free to read it.

Else - in the light of the experimental evidence there is no REASONABLE explanation how it can conduct - considering that both switches are 'open' or 'off' as you put it.

Again,
Regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 18, 2012, 02:26:48 PM
What's required to answer the question above, is a choice between two words:

a) POSITIVE

b) NEGATIVE

What is your choice?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 12:52:02 AM
My dear Poynty Point.

May I say, at the outset, and with the utmost respect, that I find your manners to be somewhat 'loutish' - I think is the best description.  You seem to think that you can dispense with any need to explain away that assemblage of incomprehensible 'argument' that I've summarised - by simply DEMANDING a REPLY to an elementary question.  And this - without any apparent requirement on your part to either address me or the arguments that you're so anxiously avoiding.  IF only ALL our problems could go away that easily.  If ONLY life could be that simple.  Indeed.  Because then we would all be able to forget that you ever put pen to that cascading slew of abused science, which is offered, as a sample of an utterly deluded mind.  OR.  Perhaps?  Were you depending on the fact that our own minds are that deluded that we'd readily engage in all that CONFUSION?  Were you trying MISDIRECT us?  Or have you, rather ponderously, assumed that you could USURP authority away from our GREATS and then simply rewrite science?

I think we'd all of us like to know.  IF, on the other hand you are trying, within the ambit of your rather poor aptitudes for either science or for any skills with some elementary social graces, you are simply trying to take the argument to another level - then that's a very good thing.  I would LOVE to engage in a discussion with you on the amount of negative voltage required to open or close a rather standard IRFPG50 MOSFET.  But ONLY in the context of our paper and my thesis.  And then too.  We'd need you to EXPLAIN the relevance of your question to this.  And with due respect, I would STRONGLY recommend that you apply some basic courtesies to this discussion.  Else everyone reading here will simply assume that you're a TROLL.  God forbid.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 01:30:49 AM
Rosemary,

Is something distracting you from the question at hand, or are you simply trying to avoid answering it by indulging in such rhetoric? Here it is again, all in one nice package:

What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

Or put in a manner more conducive to your terminology: What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to close the switch in the MOSFET ?

What is necessary to answer the above question, is a choice between two words:

a) POSITIVE

b) NEGATIVE

What is your choice?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 01:37:36 AM
Dear Poynty,

Can you read?  I've answered you.

Rosie

Rosemary,

Is something distracting you from the question at hand, or are you simply trying to avoid answering it by indulging in such rhetoric? Here it is again, all in one nice package:

What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

Or put in a manner more conducive to your terminology: What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to close the switch in the MOSFET ?

What is necessary to answer the above question, is a choice between two words:

a) POSITIVE

b) NEGATIVE

What is your choice?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 01:45:45 AM
Dear Poynty,

Can you read?  I've answered you.

Rosie

 ??? Could one of the three readers here please copy the post where Rosemary answered the question with either POSITIVE or NEGATIVE as the response? My computer seems to be having some trouble displaying it.

Thanks,
.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 01:57:02 AM
My dear Poynty Point,

You really need to brush up on your math.  You seem to be confusing the number of readers on your own forum with the numbers of readers at this thread.  Either that, or with that characteristic disregard to for established protocols you've invented a new method of counting.  Pay heed Poynty.  As in all things.  You need to define your terms.

In any event, let me oblige you.

As ever,
Rosie Pose


My dear Poynty Point.

May I say, at the outset, and with the utmost respect, that I find your manners to be somewhat 'loutish' - I think is the best description.  You seem to think that you can dispense with any need to explain away that assemblage of incomprehensible 'argument' that I've summarised - by simply DEMANDING a REPLY to an elementary question.  And this - without any apparent requirement on your part to either address me or the arguments that you're so anxiously avoiding.  IF only ALL our problems could go away that easily.  If ONLY life could be that simple.  Indeed.  Because then we would all be able to forget that you ever put pen to that cascading slew of abused science, which is offered, as a sample of an utterly deluded mind.  OR.  Perhaps?  Were you depending on the fact that our own minds are that deluded that we'd readily engage in all that CONFUSION?  Were you trying MISDIRECT us?  Or have you, rather ponderously, assumed that you could USURP authority away from our GREATS and then simply rewrite science?

I think we'd all of us like to know.  IF, on the other hand you are trying, within the ambit of your rather poor aptitudes for either science or for any skills with some elementary social graces, you are simply trying to take the argument to another level - then that's a very good thing.  I would LOVE to engage in a discussion with you on the amount of negative voltage required to open or close a rather standard IRFPG50 MOSFET.  But ONLY in the context of our paper and my thesis.  And then too.  We'd need you to EXPLAIN the relevance of your question to this.  And with due respect, I would STRONGLY recommend that you apply some basic courtesies to this discussion.  Else everyone reading here will simply assume that you're a TROLL.  God forbid.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 02:10:16 AM
The question is quite clear and specific, and requires only a single word response from a selection of two possible answers.

The specific part of the question which you don't seem to understand, is the polarity required from Gate to Source to CLOSE the MOSFET switch.

So, which is your choice pertaining to the specific mentioned?

POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: tak22 on January 19, 2012, 02:20:16 AM
 I'm not one of the three readers, but I read it like this:
Rosie gets asked a question and asks for a definition, gets a definition, and then after oodles of words plus a few
accusations and sidesteps thrown in for good measure, tosses it back unanswered with 'conditions' if it's to be pursued.
Normally questions aren't answered this way.
tak
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 02:22:08 AM
NO Poynty Point.  You CANNOT demand an over simplified answer - to anything at all - and certainly NOT out of context.  THAT will be construed as being UNREASONABLE.  It may be seen as GOADING.  We are NOT in a Court of Law where a prosecutor can DEMAND a yes or no answer to a question.

I HAVE ANSWERED YOU.  If you are simply repeating this question in the hopes of taking this discussion NOWHERE - then I'm afraid I'll close of this discussion and outline the OBVIOUS conclusions to be drawn from these tactics of yours.  What ABSURDITIES you indulge.  That you can solicit a response as REQUIRED?  IN ANY CONTEXT THAT YOU DEMAND? DO YOU WANT ME TO GET TECHNICAL?  And thereby BLUFF you all that I'm better qualified than I choose to represent myself.

Do you want me to say, for instance, that the differential voltage between the Gate and the Source would be positive with respect to the source pin.  And that the IRFPG50 has a maximum VGS limit of about 20 volts.  And that this limit is determined by the thickness of the gate oxide and it's dialetric properties that can then lower the threshold to about 2-4 volts?  WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ADVANCE ANYTHING AT ALL?  It is the PAPER that details our claim that we need to deal with POYNTY.  Or, alternatively, we can continue to discuss your own rather circuitous logic in that document that you repeatedly aver to.
 
The question is quite clear and specific, and requires only a single word response from a selection of two possible answers.

The specific part of the question which you don't seem to understand, is the polarity required from Gate to Source to CLOSE the MOSFET switch.

So, which is your choice pertaining to the specific mentioned?

POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?

Regards,
Rosie Posie
ADDED
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 02:30:54 AM
Not quite tak22,

Rosie asks a whole lot of questions that are IGNORED.  Poynty then asks an elementary question OUT OF CONTEXT and DEMANDS AN ANSWER.  For some reason he need not answer my questions.  For some reason I MUST answer his?  And I must answer it in a form that I find utterly objectionable because there is NO STRAIGHT ANSWER.  What N CHANNEL MOSFET is he referring to?  With what properties?  And used to what purpose?  And where is the applied signal?  And how is this relevant to the questions under discussion?  And on and on.  I think if you're about to draw conclusions from this - then NOTE.  I HAVE answered his question.  He has NOT answered mine.

Regards,
Rosemary


I'm not one of the three readers, but I read it like this:
Rosie gets asked a question and asks for a definition, gets a definition, and then after oodles of words plus a few
accusations and sidesteps thrown in for good measure, tosses it back unanswered with 'conditions' if it's to be pursued.
Normally questions aren't answered this way.
tak
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 02:32:08 AM
So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question was "POSITIVE"?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 02:37:27 AM
So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question was "POSITIVE"?

Dear Poynty,

With regard to this post of yours.  Certainly NOT.  Here is my answer. 

Kindest regards
Rosie

My dear Poynty Point.

May I say, at the outset, and with the utmost respect, that I find your manners to be somewhat 'loutish' - I think is the best description.  You seem to think that you can dispense with any need to explain away that assemblage of incomprehensible 'argument' that I've summarised - by simply DEMANDING a REPLY to an elementary question.  And this - without any apparent requirement on your part to either address me or the arguments that you're so anxiously avoiding.  IF only ALL our problems could go away that easily.  If ONLY life could be that simple.  Indeed.  Because then we would all be able to forget that you ever put pen to that cascading slew of abused science, which is offered, as a sample of an utterly deluded mind.  OR.  Perhaps?  Were you depending on the fact that our own minds are that deluded that we'd readily engage in all that CONFUSION?  Were you trying MISDIRECT us?  Or have you, rather ponderously, assumed that you could USURP authority away from our GREATS and then simply rewrite science?

I think we'd all of us like to know.  IF, on the other hand you are trying, within the ambit of your rather poor aptitudes for either science or for any skills with some elementary social graces, you are simply trying to take the argument to another level - then that's a very good thing.  I would LOVE to engage in a discussion with you on the amount of negative voltage required to open or close a rather standard IRFPG50 MOSFET.  But ONLY in the context of our paper and my thesis.  And then too.  We'd need you to EXPLAIN the relevance of your question to this.  And with due respect, I would STRONGLY recommend that you apply some basic courtesies to this discussion.  Else everyone reading here will simply assume that you're a TROLL.  God forbid.

AND HERE

Do you want me to say, for instance, that the differential voltage between the Gate and the Source would be positive with respect to the source pin.  And that the IRFPG50 has a maximum VGS limit of about 20 volts.  And that this limit is determined by the thickness of the gate oxide and it's dialetric properties that can then lower the threshold to about 2-4 volts?  WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ADVANCE ANYTHING AT ALL?  It is the PAPER that details our claim that we need to deal with POYNTY.  Or, alternatively, we can continue to discuss your own rather circuitous logic in that document that you repeatedly aver to.

EDITED.  Added the second answer. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 02:42:05 AM
So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question is "NEGATIVE"?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 02:44:59 AM
So from all those ooodles of words (thanks tak), are we all to conclude that your answer to the question is "NEGATIVE"?

STILL WRONG Poynty.

Wake up.  My answer will ONLY be forthcoming when you FULLY EXPLAIN the context of your QUESTION.

Kindest as ever,
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: derricka on January 19, 2012, 03:01:07 AM
Quote
POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?[/size]


Funny, but at this poynt, our dear Rosie has much in common with a proton. They would both seemingly go out of their way to avoid the correct answer. 


BTW, if anyone here actually wants the correct answer, feel free to let me know. As a bonus, I'll even toss in some additional information, like, how a MOSFET gate could potentially fool someone into thinking they're getting free energy.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 03:06:00 AM

Funny, but at this poynt, our dear Rosie has much in common with an electron. They would both seemingly go out of their way to avoid the correct answer. 


BTW, if anyone here actually wants the correct answer, feel free to let me know. As a bonus, I'll even toss in some additional information, like, how a MOSFET gate could potentially fool someone into thinking they're getting free energy.

My dear Derrick,

I think we'd ALL like to hear more from you.  Long overdue - if INDEED you have the answer.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

By the way - I see you amended that analogy of me from an electron to a proton.  lol  Much appreciated. I prefer to think of myself as being positively charged.

 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 03:48:09 AM
SO.  Guys, here's the thing.

Poynty denies our right to claim his over unity prize by variously

.  Refuting the claim based on grossly flawed scientific protocols and logic
.  By refusing to engage in a discussion of the claims
.  Steering the focus away from the reasons for his dismissal by simply asking unrelated and inappropriate questions
.  That cannot be answered outside of a full qualification
.  And then sulking because I will not answer them until he explains his POYNT.  IF ANY

So  I put it to you that his mission is NOT to earnestly embark on the evaluation of a claim - as he DARE NOT.  Therefore one can conclude that his prize is simply a ruse to lure the unsuspecting to make their claims.  Then he bamboozles the Almighty himself in a TOTAL rewrite of the standard model - as required - to REFUTE those claims on any chosen pretext.  And his arguments related to that REFUTATION are infinitely variable - as he does not need to adhere to the rules of standard measurement protocols - NOR to that standard model.

Who would have thought?  And all this time - we all assumed that he was promoting and not FRUSTRATING the advancement of science. :o

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 04:55:28 AM
Derricka,

There's only one here that doesn't appear to know the answer, but it's preferable we let that one person post their response rather than take the opportunity away from them.

Regards,
.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 07:08:47 AM
And guys, may I add that I answered his rather ambiguous question as best as it is humanly possibly - adding the required qualifications - lest the answer be considered ambivalent.


Do you want me to say, for instance, that the differential voltage between the Gate and the Source would be positive with respect to the source pin.  And that the IRFPG50 has a maximum VGS limit of about 20 volts.  And that this limit is determined by the thickness of the gate oxide and it's dialetric properties that can then lower the threshold to about 2-4 volts?  WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ADVANCE ANYTHING AT ALL?  It is the PAPER that details our claim that we need to deal with POYNTY.  Or, alternatively, we can continue to discuss your own rather circuitous logic in that document that you repeatedly aver to.

For reasons that only Poynty understands - he is DETERMINED to believe that his question has NOT BEEN ANSWERED.  But that's very much in keeping with his style.  Poynty follows the rich tradition enjoyed by most of the members of his forum.  They have - to a man -  usurped all rights to comment on over unity - or it's lack.  And they manage this by applying the rather eccentric principles that Poynty outlined in his 16 POYNT PROPOSAL where he attempted to argue against our evidence.  As a study in bad science - it's IMPECCABLE.  And what intrigues me ALWAYS is that they all seriously propose that I am the one who's DELUED - UNTRAINED - KNOW NOT WHEREOF I SPEAK - PROMOTE NON-STANDARD PHYSICS - and on and on.  I think the psychological term is 'projection'.  In any event.  Poynty has never allowed reality, mere facts,  raw data - intrude on his consciousness. 

But perhaps we should indulge him this 'license to confusion'.  Perhaps it's only fair.  After all - when can any of us accuse Poynty of being reasonable, logical, polite, impartial or even professional?  And God forbid that we expect him to limit his argument to conventional knowledge.  His true genius is in that vaunted knowledge which he presents with a certain flourish.  It's as tangled a overcooked spaghetti.  And it's sense just as unpalatable.  He seems to magic a new reality and expect us to swallow it.

In any event.  My quarrel remains.  He has DENIED us our claim for his over unity prize.  I therefore call on him to JUSTIFY this denial.  Else, Poynty Point - you NEED TO PAY UP. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 07:35:54 AM
And may I add.

MEANWHILE the record stands.  We have, most assuredly, together with many others on these forums - defeated those unity barriers. There are those who have made it their mission to deny this.  And in their efforts to DENY - they apply the most extraordinary standards of adjudication - that would NEVER stand up to the close scrutiny that's applied by any serious scientist.

SO.  REST ASSURED.  The unity barrier is no longer relevant.  It is of no force and effect.  It is to science what the dinosaurs are to history.  Sadly irrelevant - but an intriguing evolutionary event - ESPECIALLY AS IT'S REFLECTED IN BIRD BRAINS.  LOL

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Added
That 'bird brain' thing.   :D :o 8)
And I had to include 'MEANWHILE' else Poynty will think we don't intend to claim his prize.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 19, 2012, 12:22:02 PM

Aren't MOSFET are controlled by voltage only: how we could get FE !?
Source: is the entry of current.
Drain: the exit.
Gate: the control only by voltage, generally a  5V for a N MOSFET (The more common).


MOSFET doesn't use current in the Gate to control ON or OFF state, the linear control is very low (to 0 at 5Volts) they are more efficient in ON-OFF mode (that's why they are the king for PWM application)...
1) So I have something wrong here !?
2) How you can get OU from a MOSFET !?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 01:40:27 PM
Aren't MOSFET are controlled by voltage only: how we could get FE !?
Source: is the entry of current.
Drain: the exit.
Gate: the control only by voltage, generally a  5V for a N MOSFET (The more common).


MOSFET doesn't use current in the Gate to control ON or OFF state, the linear control is very low (to 0 at 5Volts) they are more efficient in ON-OFF mode (that's why they are the king for PWM application)...
1) So I have something wrong here !?
2) How you can get OU from a MOSFET !?

Hello Schubert

Who are you asking?  Golly. I hope I've NEVER claimed to get OU from a MOSFET.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 19, 2012, 02:05:09 PM
Quote
Who are you asking?  Golly. I hope I've NEVER claimed to get OU from a MOSFET.   


At everyone^^...

In fact, I would to said that: A Gate have never current flowing...
Flowing direction is: S --> D (by controlling the gate) and D --> S (by a freewheeling diode inside them) maybe to avoid inductive spike burning the Mosfet...


Schubert.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 02:37:40 PM
I'm going to ask the same question again but this time with a visual aid, so no one spoil it please. We want Rosemary to have first crack at it. Coming up soon, I need to draw it up.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Cloxxki on January 19, 2012, 03:16:14 PM
@poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/) (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 05:09:26 PM
I'm going to ask the same question again but this time with a visual aid, so no one spoil it please. We want Rosemary to have first crack at it. Coming up soon, I need to draw it up.

.99

My dear Poynty,

If we were delay our claim while you scraped that barrel - then this poor little thread would truly die from want of interest.  Until you've answered my own questions - or until you make your questions a little more apposite - I'm inclined to ignore all your further posts.  Meanwhile I would remind you.  You need to 'cough up'.  I'll forward you my the paypal details as soon as you acknowledge this claim of ours.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 05:10:02 PM
Cloxxki,

I would say a minimum COP of 2, preferably 3, with a minimum excess of 1W output.

For the OUR award, the terms require 15W minimum of continuous output above input.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 05:11:31 PM
Now.  The next application is to our very own academic - Professor Steven E Jones.  Could we impose on you to reply to our emails?  We are anxious to enter into some dialogue related to our over unity evidence that is detailed in our paper that I sent to you.

We believe we qualify for your overunity prize and would be glad if you could evaluate our paper as the basis of our claim.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 19, 2012, 05:15:15 PM
Currently, it's the existential question that I ask to myself...  ::)


IE: 1) You have a device with a COP of 10: Yeah the device is great !!!  ;D
      2) BUT, your device is about only 10% efficiency about the conversion process (Friction, bad   
          coupling, Heat, Impedance mismatching, [put whatever you want here...] )   >:(
      3) Despite your COP 10 when you try to get the juice you have only 1 since 90% of energy is wasted !!!  :o >:( :(
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IE:  1) You have a COP of 1.5 but 90% efficiency conversion, you get:  :D
       2) 1.5*0.9 = 1.35...    ;)
       3) Despite your 1.5 only COP you have 0.35 totally free, 1 to self loop, and 0.15 in losses...
           8) ;D 8)


SRM

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 19, 2012, 05:18:10 PM
OK Rosemary,

Which signal would need to be connected to point "G" in the diagram to turn the BULB ON and make it fully glow?

"A" or "B"?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 05:24:02 PM
Currently, it's the existential question that I ask to myself...  ::)


IE: 1) You have a device with a COP of 10: Yeah the device is great !!!  ;D
      2) BUT, your device is about only 10% efficiency about the conversion process (Friction, bad   
          coupling, Heat, Impedance mismatching, [put whatever you want here...] )   >:(
      3) Despite your COP 10 when you try to get the juice you have only 1 since 90% of energy is wasted !!!  :o >:( :(
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IE:  1) You have a COP of 1.5 but 90% efficiency conversion, you get:  :D
       2) 1.5*0.9 = 1.35...    ;)
       3) Despite your 1.5 only COP you have 0.35 totally free, 1 to self loop, and 0.15 in losses...
           8) ;D 8)

Dear Schubert,

Where do you get those numbers?  From Poynty?  I've explained this.  We measure an INFINITE COP - which means that it FAR EXCEEDS the level required for qualification for Poynty's prize.  And we generate well in excess of 100 Watts - as required and depending on the tuning of the apparatus. 

You are more than welcome to try and 'self loop' that circuit - or some variant.  But to loop any part of it to recharge those batteries that you recommended would require the generation of current out of NOTHING.  Which, I explained, exceeds our claim.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: mscoffman on January 19, 2012, 05:38:56 PM
@poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/) (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?


That depends...On whether thermalized heat is part of the gain loop or not. If the input and
output is electricity then only a very small gain will be usable in a loop via a serial connection
of gain units. If too-small a gain, then one has to consider whether environmental sources of
energy are somehow aiding a nearly 100% efficient device.

If heat is in use then you have to consider the inverse Carnot efficiency of a (perfect gas)
heat engine. Carnot efficiency is like a mathematical limit that other technologies,
not dependent on a perfect gas, can generally approach.

Carnot efficiency depends on the difference between the hot side and cold side
reservoir sources and for room temperature low side and a flame high side it
approaches 33% (like an ICE engine). To offset heat engine looses in such a loop
a gain of 3x would generally be sufficient. Heat not participating in 33% conversion
is waste heat that the low side reservoir will need to dispose of to keep it's
temperature from rising. So you can see that the presents of heat in the loop
is generally a very undesirable requirement, if one ultimately wants upgraded
energy.
 

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 19, 2012, 05:39:09 PM
@Rosemary:

Don't worry this is just an example for Cloxxki.
Even with a ridiculous COP if the efficiency is good, you can do it !!!

If you can get an infinite COP (I guess your input is 0) N / 0  = Infinity... (That's why mathematician say it's "impossible" you have a singularity here)...

Self loop is the finger in the nose you can get even Nobel for that !!!

Regards, Schubert.






Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 05:40:54 PM
@poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/) (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?

Hi Cloxxki,

You're not familiar with Poynty's work.  Look up his paper.  You'll see his own simulations confirm that we're dissipating in excess of 100 Watts with a negative wattage product.

That's why he's had to re-invent science.  He can't deny the evidence.

Kindest again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 05:46:00 PM
@Rosemary:

Don't worry this is just an example for Cloxxki.
Even with a ridiculous COP if the efficiency is good, you can do it !!!

If you can get an infinite COP (I guess your input is 0) N / 0  = Infinity... (That's why mathematician say it's "impossible" you have a singularity here)...

Self loop is the finger in the nose you can get even Nobel for that !!!

Regards, Schubert.

Ok Schubert.  I thought you were also denying my evidence. 

 ;D

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 19, 2012, 05:50:21 PM
Nothing to that,
I'm skeptic but open minded at the same time, even for things like paranormal, UFO, etc,  and of course FE...

"Impossible" is not in my dictionary but "Improbable" yes...



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 05:53:54 PM
Nothing to that,
I'm skeptic but open minded at the same time, even for things like paranormal, UFO, etc,  and of course FE...

"Impossible" is not in my dictionary but "Improbable" yes...

lol.  That's perfectly healthy Schubert.   ;D   Nothing wrong with an open mind.  Provided only it doesn't then accommodate Poynty's extraordinary science.  And nothing wrong with a moderate helping of scepticism. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Cloxxki on January 19, 2012, 06:41:31 PM
I lack all kinds of physics knowledge to begin to understand your respective papers.
 
I can however probably invent a system that will be a kind of capacitor, with accumulated energy (from input) slushing around in controlled flow. Measuring on specific part of this flow will surely offer near infinite COP numbers, if considered to reflect that. Like a tiny engine running a flywheel. Eventually the kinetic energy harnessed equals the capacity of the battery. If you then just measure the weight being lifted on the upside of the flywheel even single second...well you understand.
 
OU is not there if the output cannot be extracted. Like candy in a box you can't eat from, as the mean fairy will make it all disappear instantly. You don't need a real scientist to tell you that.
You've got heat? Great, let it be dissipated by a heat engine. You can make an abundance, after all?
 
Lower you COP claim to 3 and make it happen. Conversion technology is well in place, and can be tailored to your device.
I'll be the first to write to the Nobel Commity to promote your work when it's looped. An OU claim without even an attempt to loop, should be considered borderline fraud, or worse. In fact, it could be considered a crime against humanity, as any OU claim directs brain power away from other projects, which are all more meritable.
 
My limited science background doesn't allow me to see the fine difference between an amazing OU device from lazy inventor failing to loop it, and a capacitor. I'd like to be educated though. for now, I'm with Schubert and Poynt on this.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 07:50:07 PM
I lack all kinds of physics knowledge to begin to understand your respective papers.
 
I can however probably invent a system that will be a kind of capacitor, with accumulated energy (from input) slushing around in controlled flow. Measuring on specific part of this flow will surely offer near infinite COP numbers, if considered to reflect that. Like a tiny engine running a flywheel. Eventually the kinetic energy harnessed equals the capacity of the battery. If you then just measure the weight being lifted on the upside of the flywheel even single second...well you understand.
 
OU is not there if the output cannot be extracted. Like candy in a box you can't eat from, as the mean fairy will make it all disappear instantly. You don't need a real scientist to tell you that.
You've got heat? Great, let it be dissipated by a heat engine. You can make an abundance, after all?
 
Lower you COP claim to 3 and make it happen. Conversion technology is well in place, and can be tailored to your device.
I'll be the first to write to the Nobel Commity to promote your work when it's looped. An OU claim without even an attempt to loop, should be considered borderline fraud, or worse. In fact, it could be considered a crime against humanity, as any OU claim directs brain power away from other projects, which are all more meritable.
 
My limited science background doesn't allow me to see the fine difference between an amazing OU device from lazy inventor failing to loop it, and a capacitor. I'd like to be educated though. for now, I'm with Schubert and Poynt on this.

Cloxxki - that was indeed a thoughtful post.  Thanks for that.  I've spent the last half hour trying to answer it and I CANNOT do this without going into that much detail that I may as well just repost our entire paper.  And that you're asking at all - is proof that you can't understand it.  Can I ask you this?  Could you take the trouble to read it and then ask me  precisely what is NOT clear.  That's assuming that you understand any of it at all.  I'd be DELIGHTED to engage.  I know that the thinking has eluded the most of you.  It may help everyone.  Especially me.  Because I never know at which point the logic becomes obtuse.

Very, very broadly, the proposal is that there is a FIXED NUMBER OF these magnetic particles in magnetic fields.  And these magnetic fields comprise the material structure of current flow. Well. Depending on a path allowed for by the circuit - current flow is the movement of these particles, which always return to their source.  This flow is a coherent field condition.  But given an imbalanced field, then it generates heat.  And HEAT is a chaotic condition of the 'field'.  And then these particles can transmute into photons and then irradiate away from that source.  Therefore HEAT is the measurable rate at which these fields are depleted.  And they can't be recovered.  Previously these structured orderly fields bound that circuit material into it's coalesced condition.  Therefore in a chaotic condition, when these photons deplete the number of those binding fields, then the depletion also then compromises the bound condition of the circuit material.

So.  We can move current around - from one battery to another, and we can even generate copious amounts of heat - but we cannot prevent a depletion of those particles as they irradiate away from their source.  And because it's a 'fixed amount' then we cannot recharge batteries without subtracting from the original amount or quantity from that source. 

In short.  All we've proposed is that there's all this potential energy in bound matter - which is in line with Einstein's mass energy equivalence.  And we can use this in inductive and conductive material.  Where we deviate from the standard model ASSUMPTION is in that this suggests that the ONLY source of energy to a circuit is from the source supply.  A battery or some such.  A required source of potential difference.  We PROVE that this potential can be transferred and then USED - EXCLUSIVELY from the material in those circuit components.  Its potential value, therefore, is that we can generate this 'flow' without compromising the potential difference in the battery source supply.  So.  We get a gradual degradation of the circuit material at no attendant cost of the potential difference from the battery.  Which is valuable INDEED.  But it's NOT PERPETUAL MOTION. And strangely, it resolves a lot of questions related to the property of electric energy and voltage and current flow.  In other words - it does NOT conflict with the evidence.  But nota bene.  It also depends on the voltage or potential difference that's enabled in that inductive/conductive material.  This potential will also deplete at a rate that is consistent with the amount of energy that is irradiated away from that source.

But PLEASE.  Do ASK.  As mentioned - I have no CLUE if anything that I write is even vaguely comprehensible.  And I would LOVE to make this clear.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Cloxxki on January 19, 2012, 08:17:01 PM
I get lost within a few words, words start to dance in front of my eyes.


Your last post to me again explained a capacitor. A best, a situation where one person eating patato chips (very low input) is irritating the entire opera house, but won't get them to make noise (= work) or leave their seats (=work). You can measure the 1000 highly irritated people and get proof of their collective "negative energy", but it only exists inside that place and moment. You can't use their frustration to get to a person out on the street.



Remove the OU claims and the technology might be interesting to explain currently unknown laws and particles. With the OU claim attached though, I will call it nonsence unless attempted to loop.

Like sitting by the river, flowing violently. You stick in your hand and the river pulls. Wow, free energy! Yet totally useless. It's drained your body's energy soms by cooling you hand, and you were not to put the force to use. Stick in a waterwheel plus generator and you're in business.
Don't set the standards so low for yourself. If you observe the river, don't just measure it, tap into it. If you find the river stops flowing when you stick in the waterwheel, that gives you hints as to how that river works.


Is the chaotic heat really a byproduct or an intermediate phase of a repeating process? It is even conventional heat?


This may come across as disrespectful, but if you can't use a battery to charge the other one up and do some useful work, you've at best invented a new way to drain a battery. OU is alll about newly charged batteries, and better: work done. Water needs to be heated, on demand. Scalable. Weight need to be lifted. Not temporarily, but definitely. No counter-action.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 19, 2012, 08:54:57 PM
@ Rosemary, sorry your heat is produced by the inductor !?  They have a core ? I hope you have not confounded with the hysteresis losses of a core ?

You have spoken that the circuit material DEPLETE, but problem any depleting source = Conventional energy transformation not FE...

After reading your text look like a nuclear reaction, maybe a new type but not FE...

I would like to know what is degrading ? The core, the wire, the MOSFET ?
Degrading, depleting is not good at all, I hope I have misunderstood your response...


SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 08:55:23 PM

Remove the OU claims and the technology might be interesting to explain currently unknown laws and particles. With the OU claim attached though, I will call it nonsence unless attempted to loop.
Well.  Cloxxki.  That's your prerogative to make of it what you will.  You're still insisting we loop this.  I assure you we can't.  We are NOT creating energy.  We're simply transferring it.   

Like sitting by the river, flowing violently. You stick in your hand and the river pulls. Wow, free energy! Yet totally useless. It's drained your body's energy soms by cooling you hand, and you were not to put the force to use. Stick in a waterwheel plus generator and you're in business.
Don't set the standards so low for yourself. If you observe the river, don't just measure it, tap into it. If you find the river stops flowing when you stick in the waterwheel, that gives you hints as to how that river works.
Low standards?  Golly.  That's rough.  I thought our standards of experimentation are rather high. And there's surely some value in resolving a lot questions related to our standard model?  In any event.  I get it you're not into theory. 

Is the chaotic heat really a byproduct or an intermediate phase of a repeating process? It is even conventional heat?
Just read that paper Cloxxki.  I think you may yet get a better sense of it.  And if English isn't your home tongue - then google can translate.  Not sure how well.

Thanks any way
Rosemary

This may come across as disrespectful, but if you can't use a battery to charge the other one up and do some useful work, you've at best invented a new way to drain a battery. OU is alll about newly charged batteries, and better: work done. Water needs to be heated, on demand. Scalable. Weight need to be lifted. Not temporarily, but definitely. No counter-action.
I missed this.  HOW DO WE DRAIN THAT BATTERY?  Not only have we NOT measured any loss of voltage over an entire year of continual use -  but our measurements show a zero discharge.  It's not disrespectful.  It's simply not scientific.  You're like so many others.  You've made up your mind about the evidence without evaluating that evidence.  How are we to progress anything at all when standard measurements are ignored? 

Again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 19, 2012, 09:10:34 PM
Rosemary, sorry your heat is produced by the inductor !?  They have a core ? I hope you have not confounded with the hysteresis losses of a core ?
We use an element that has a certain inductance in it's material.  We do NOT use any kind of standard transformer.

You have spoken that the circuit material DEPLETE, but problem any depleting source = Conventional energy transformation not FE...
No Schubert.  The degradation is to the bound state of the resistor material.  Over time.  For instance the filament in a light would break.  Too much energy and the resistor can catch fire.  Golly.  PLEASE read that paper.  It's all there.  I shouldn't have tried to answer Cloxxki.

After reading your text look like a nuclear reaction, maybe a new type but not FE
Indeed it's not FREE ENERGY.  I have NEVER subscribed to free energy.  In my humble opinion - there's no such thing. 

I would like to know what is degrading ? The core, the wire, the MOSFET ?
All I'm pointing to is that there are losses.  Much less than the depletion of a battery.  But still there are losses.  It is NEVER FREE ENERGY.

Degrading, depleting is not good at all, I hope I have misunderstood your response...
LOL.  NO.  You've only made it more extreme than I intended.

Take care Schubert.  And PLEASE.  Read that 2nd paper.  Surely it's understandable?   I've had REALLY prestigious academics commend it for it's CLARITY.  Surely it's not entirely incomprehensible to you guys?

Kindest again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 19, 2012, 09:53:36 PM
OK I will read this, can you give me a link it's on forum DDL section ?

Regards SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2012, 01:10:19 AM
So it seems Rose does not know the answer to the simple question pertaining to post #200, nor does she want to risk getting it wrong by guessing.

How unfortunate, I was going to oblige by answering ONE of her questions if she answered mine.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2012, 03:10:06 AM
I have no CLUE if anything that I write is even vaguely comprehensible.

Rest assured, it isn't.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 20, 2012, 04:02:05 AM
OK I will read this, can you give me a link it's on forum DDL section ?

Regards SRM.

Dear Schubert,

Golly, I see now why you couldn't find that link.  I had to scroll back 7 pages to find it.  Anyway - here it is.  If you have difficulty in opening it then email me.  My email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za.  I can send you the files directly.  That applies to anyone reading here.  It seems that many of you are having difficulties. 


http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766)

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767)

It was made available to the public via Poynty Point's forum with the recommendation that it's read for it's comic value.  I don't mind on which basis it's read.  Just as long as it IS read.  That way there's still an outright chance that this can get some critical resuscitation.  Some airing. OXYGEN.  Much needed.

Take care Schubert.  Hopefully you'll get back to me with those questions.  And THANK YOU.  It is always a pleasure to find those brave souls who'll DEFY the abuses that our nay sayers apply - and simply make up their own minds - for themselves.  And it seems that this thesis of ours needs to be salvaged from a misrepresentation that has been catastrophically efficient.

Kindest and best regards,
Rosie

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 20, 2012, 04:07:49 AM
And Poynty Point,

It seems that I must remind you to cough up.  You owe me your prize money.   :o

Alternatively you owe me a DETAILED DISCUSSION as to why you're rejecting our measurements?  And I wonder if I could impose on you to REFER to our papers in preference to your own.  That way we can avoid all further confusions related to your unfortunate attempts at rewriting the standard measurement protocols. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

And by the by.  Could I ask you to engage PhysicsProf? aka as Steven E Jones?  I keep trying to reach him.  And he keeps trying to ignore me.  It's a losing battle.  I have NO HOPE of claiming his prize offer if he's not going to acknowledge my communications.

Again,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2012, 04:31:37 AM
I have NO HOPE of claiming his prize offer if he's not going to acknowledge my communications.

I'm afraid you have NO HOPE in claiming anyone's prize....and speaking of not acknowledging communications, I've left you with a clear and simple question to answer. How about it?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2012, 05:43:25 AM
Alternatively you owe me a DETAILED DISCUSSION as to why you're rejecting our measurements?  And I wonder if I could impose on you to REFER to our papers in preference to your own.

I'd be happy to tear your paper to shreds...errr give it a critique I mean  ;D . However, with your limited level of understanding in these matters, and resistance in adapting to modern accepted technical terms, coupled with your own twisted postulates of electric theory, I'm afraid we would be "discussing" the measurements in your paper for eons.

Perhaps if you choose ONE SPECIFIC question, I might (regrettably I suspect) oblige in giving it a go. In return, I'd ask you to provide an answer to my question in post #200, selecting one of the two choices given.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 20, 2012, 05:47:00 AM
I'd be happy to tear your paper to shreds...errr give it a critique I mean  ;D . However, with your limited level of understanding in these matters, and resistance in adapting to modern accepted technical terms, coupled with your own twisted postulates of electric theory, I'm afraid we would be "discussing" the measurements in your paper for eons.

Perhaps if you choose ONE question, I might (regrettably I suspect) oblige in giving it a go. In return, I'd ask you to provide an answer to my question in post #200, selecting one of the two choices given.

.99

My dear Poynty

It's a comfort to see that you're acknowledging a need to answer my questions.  I'll pass on yours if you don't mind.  At least until you explain the relevance. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2012, 05:54:59 AM
I'll pass on yours also then, especially since most if not all the answers to your questions are contained within my analysis already.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 20, 2012, 06:11:15 AM
I'll pass on yours also then, especially since most if not all the answers to your questions are contained within my analysis already.

Golly Poynty Point.   :o   I KNOW that it's already included in your analysis.  That's PRECISELY the problem.  Your analysis is not so much an analysis as it is a ROMP in the most curious mishmash of misapplied measurement protocols to EVER DISGRACE THESE FORUMS.

Good gracious.

Ever Rosy
Rosie Pose.

by the way.  Here's a convenient link to those arguments of yours.  It gets way too repetitive to keep repeating the original post.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/

GOLLY I put in the wrong link.  Whatever next?  :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 20, 2012, 10:30:25 AM
@Rosemary:


Thank you for the links: I will take a look.


SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 20, 2012, 01:15:50 PM
@Rosemary:


Thank you for the links: I will take a look.


SRM.

Truly a pleasure.  And thank YOU Schubert.  There's not many who are THAT brave that they'll publicly acknowledge reading these papers. 

Take very good care of yourself.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 06:24:34 AM
Hello guys,

I posted this directly onto Professor's own thread - in the hopes that he'll read this.  Still no answer.  Strange. :'(

My dear Professor,

You were rather public about the display of some very sweet coins you offered as a prize for experimental proof of over unity.  We have now attempted to alert you to our claim for this and, for some reason, you're not READING our challenge.

I am a little concerned that the problem may be with your eyesight.  I know something about this.  I too, am as blind as a bat.  I'm hoping that if I repeatedly call your attention to this claim of ours that - eventually - it'll come into focus.  At it's least there's an outside chance that we'll then reduce the statistical probability of being ignored FOREVER.  And one also HOPES that the fault is, indeed, an oversight.  Indeed.  It would be preferable to the rather sad conclusion that there may be an 'agenda' here - designed to IGNORE our claim - lest it prove successful.  God forbid.

We all know you as a highly professional expert in the art of scientific measurement.  You did such an extraordinary job on your dissertation related to that 9/11 catastrophe.  We also know how actively you advance proof of over unity.  I also know that poor Lawrence Tseung has been trying to alert you to his own claim for this based on the tests that I believe you've completed.  On the whole I think that Lawrence's claim actually proceeds our own.  I would be happy to 'step aside' provided only that you give us some indication that your analysis of those tests were actually based on some applied measurement protocols that conform to the standard requirements.

Do let us know.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 06:26:09 AM
And this was then posted in answer to NerzhDishual's comment


 
@Rosemary Ainslie,
 
 As far I could have caught it, Prof Jones's "very sweet coins ... prize " is (also)
 based upon "intuitu personae". Sorry for my Latin. :P
 
 English translation: by virtue of the personality of the other party
 http://www.proz.com/kudoz/latin_to_english/law_patents/138477-intuitu_personae.html (http://www.proz.com/kudoz/latin_to_english/law_patents/138477-intuitu_personae.html)
 
 Of coarse, I must be dumb as a bunch of mussels.
 
 Should I create my own prize (I can afford it) that I would act in a similar way.
 
 Very Best
 

 Not sure of the interpretation of intuiti personae.  It's rather ambivalent and wiki insists on giving a French translation.  In any event - I take it that somewhere in Professor's list of qualifications - is the right to disregard a claimant should that claim require scientific evaluation?  Have I got that right?
 
 In which case - I think what's needed here is a full and open account of what exactly is required in order to challenge Professor for those rather coveted coins of his.  Personally, I'm happy to give it my best shot.  After all.  It's not only ME who's claiming we've got INFINITE COP.  It's also very evident in Poynt.99's simulations.  We can't both be wrong.  Surely?
 
 But it may be that these coins are actually already the legal property of Lawrence Tseung.  We just don't know.  We need to find out how those tests of Professor's panned out.  His results were rather ambivalent.  Not entirely sure that he's made a full disclosure yet.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary
 
 EDITED - Added an apostrophe

Thus far I've heard nothing.  I'll let you know if he contacts me.

Again, all the best,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 08:25:24 AM
Guys, just as a quick synopsis of things.

There have been those personalities - such as Poynty Point who have gone to some considerable trouble to deny claims of over unity.  I can't possibly cover them all.  And nor can I talk with any authority about any of them other than our own claim.  Our own experience is that they first established  the credentials of the claimant.  When they're satisfied that this is lacking - then they deny the intelligence of the claimant.  When they've manged this then they attack the sanity of the claimant.  And so it goes.  In our case - it was rather more urgent - as they also had to attack the technology as we had measured proof.  And lots of it.  In which case it was REQUIRED that I be considerably more stupid and less competent and more lunatic - than average.  But any idiosyncratic aptitudes or failings - of any of those claimants - have NOTHING to do with the issue.

You will notice how Poynty Point seldom addresses me directly, and when he does - it is with a kind of offensive imperiousness.  That's designed to encourage all members and readers to share that disrespect.  Which is why - for instance - that curious Chris felt free to parade his ill mannered, injudicious rejections of our claim with such little preparation and even less justification.  Why Cloxxki feels free to publicly claim that not only am I a FRAUD but a LAZY FRAUD.  What the professional 'nay sayers' - those leading the attack -  depend on is that the sheer weight of their opinion - appropriate or otherwise - will CRUSH the claimant and with it claim.  And therefore, the ONLY thing that they will not communicate - is any residual evidence of any kind of respect at all.  Which is extraordinary.  All that is ever attempted by any claimant - any experimentalist - any  researcher - is that the issue under consideration - the science related to the claim - is also CONSIDERED and DISCUSSED. And THAT - most certainly - does NOT warrant the parade of slanderous and abusive criticism that follows in its wake.

My intention in claiming those prizes is simply based on our evidence that INDEED - we have a valid claim.  Over Unity is alive and well.  And denial of his is now positively obsolete.  At it's least we have scheduled some anomalies that are not consistent with conventional prediction.  That I have not claimed these prizes before is because, frankly, I'm not really that interested in actually getting hold of them.  Nor are any of our collaborators.  What we decided was to use our rights to claim this as an excuse to EXPOSE the fact that not only have those unity barriers been defeated - but THAT their denial of the fact is in line with their AGENDA and NOT with the evidence.  Poynty's own SIMULATIONS PROVE OUR CLAIM.  He therefore needs must re-invent the entire basis of electrical energy measurement - in order to deny this.  And by forcing him to do any public evaluation at all - EXPOSES these rather absurd mathematical inventions.  He is, most assuredly, depending on the combined ignorance of the members in standard measurement protocols.  Else there would be a howl of protests at the absurdities he's expecting you all to endorse. 

And my need to remind you that our claim is valid is precisely because there are many of you who are not aware of this fact.  There is an assumption that the unity barrier is still up and functioning.  It's not.  It's dead and buried.  I very much doubt that ours was the first evidence.  It certainly wont be the last.  But more to the point - our own technology - albeit having some nascent potentials at delivering higher energy - is already virtually archaic at its inception.  With Rossi's breakthroughs - I KNOW that there will be many, many more.  And it does not help to say that Rossi's invention is not OU - it's argued as LENR.  LENR is, itself, not fully understood.  Or fully explained.  We're at the beginning.  The door is hardly opened.  And that's all a very good thing.  But this progress is never going to 'take off' until those breaches are considered.  Very, very carefully. Nothing to do with the claimant.  Everything to do with the claim. Otherwise the perfectly excellent objectives of these forums - will be heavily compromised.  And they'll simply fade into the background noise - in the face of the real developmental thrust that will be OFF forum.  Which would be sad.  Open source is something to be protected.  And it has a potential dynamic to lead in this new science - rather than simply fade from view. 

Which may or may not explain this detour in our own thread objectives.  And hopefully - for once - I'll be able to expose that 'agenda' - be it financed or otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 21, 2012, 11:13:07 AM
I have started to read the first page of ROSSI JAP 1:


Two things shock me  :o :o


What's is a negative signal ? Your MOSFET are P or N type, (Yeah that damned MOSFET question again)... ?


Inductor STORE energy and does not "create" energy...


1) The MOSFET is ON: current flow and dissipate in R (the inductance heater).
2) The MOSFET is OFF current flow back into  battery and dissipate a second time...
3) But problem the energy returning into the battery will  be less before charging the inductance...
4) So I'm highly worried here  :-\ And the fact is battery absorb very badly CEMF impulse. What   
    about the efficiency of this method !?
5) For OU operation the inductance must be return more energy than he have stored previously !!!
6) It's very very difficult to measure the energy contained in a spike if not nearly "impossible"...


IMPORTANT EDIT:

7) Reading after, you speak about self-oscillation, and you argue that the eventual energy come from here...

So, if it this the case this no more a Rosemary Invention, you amplify energy from resonance: this a Rotoverter/ Resonance TESLA and Hector Perez tech...

8 ) Amplification by resonance will only work if you have a Q > 1 circuit:
For this L must be big before C and R to have Q > 1
You can calculate by this formula Q = 1/R SquareRoot (L/C) [notice the L against C...]

9) high Q = Current/voltage amplification and a possibility to extract the amplified energy, in certain condition...

10) Problem unless error of my part, the battery is equivalent a to big C and L is rather low...
      So the Q of the circuit is very poor, how you can amplify energy !?

11) Crucial question do you use resonance amplification to operate this ?
12) You speak about Ltseung: look like he use the same system Q amplification, if he use resonance and Q amplification his FLEET is nothing more than modified Transverter/MRA tech...
13) Stanley Meyer and Joule Thief tech are very look like to high Q resonant amplifier the C (and R also) is the water cell in the WFC and C (and R also) is the CFL in the Joule Thief/Ringer...

14) Currently I build a large power MRA, with a Q of 10 minimum to test if the Resonance amplification theory is CORRECT OR NOT...

15) If this theory is CORRECT it can explain nearly all the Overunity phenomena and devices that use Coils/Caps and pulsed or AC signal...


16) For eventual "Debunker": This a theory not a fact, and like every theory in te world she's can be TRUE, FALSE, or even partially TRUE...
Best Regard, SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 01:24:57 PM
Schubert ,
Because your post is rather long - I've taken the liberty of splitting the answers into 3 parts.  Otherwise the post becomes too confusing.

In any event, it's really difficult to understand your writing.  Here's my best shot.
I have started to read the first page of ROSSI JAP 1:
Two things shock me  :o :o
What's is a negative signal ? Your MOSFET are P or N type, (Yeah that damned MOSFET question again)... ?
The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED.

Inductor STORE energy and does not "create" energy...
IF the inductor STORES ENERGY then we would NOT get more energy returned to the battery than was supplied BY the battery. 

Not sure if you're talking 'generally' here because the tests related to this are NOT on the first page ... In any event I'm assuming your reference is to our first test as it's also referenced in both our first and second paper.
1) The MOSFET is ON: current flow and dissipate in R (the inductance heater).
2) The MOSFET is OFF current flow back into  battery and dissipate a second time...
3) But problem the energy returning into the battery will  be less before charging the inductance...
4) So I'm highly worried here  :-\ And the fact is battery absorb very badly CEMF impulse. What   
    about the efficiency of this method !?
5) For OU operation the inductance must be return more energy than he have stored previously !!!
6) It's very very difficult to measure the energy contained in a spike if not nearly "impossible"...
1)First test and test in Paper 2 has NO FLOW OF CURRENT during the closed or 'ON' condition of the MOSFET.
 2)The oscillation ramps UP during the period that the battery is DISCONNECTED.
3)There is considerably more energy being returned during that oscillating cycle than was EVER delivered by the battery.
4)What absorption?  The battery hasn't delivered any energy.
5)Indeed.  There is measurably more energy returned than was EVER delivered.
6)What spike?  We HAVE NO SPIKE. We have an oscillation that is well within the oscilloscope bandwidth to both record and measure

1st part
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 01:28:31 PM
2nd part
 
 
 
Where we do have evidence of 'spiking' is during the ON period of the switching cycle when the circuit is closed and the batteries connected. During which period there is absolutely nothing that is outside the capabilities of our oscilloscopes to measure.
 
 [quote author=SchubertReijiMaigo link=topic=11675.msg310350#msg310350 date=1327140787IMPORTANT EDIT:
7) Reading after, you speak about self-oscillation, and you argue that the eventual energy come from here...
Here?  Not sure where you mean.  We argue that because the energy cannot be coming from the battery during the oscillation phase - then it must be coming from the material of the resistor.

So, if it this the case this no more a Rosemary Invention, you amplify energy from resonance: this a Rotoverter/ Resonance TESLA and Hector Perez tech...
INDEED.  There is absolutely NO Rosemary Invention.  EVER.  Nor is it a Rotoverter/Resonance TESLA and Hector Perez tech.  It is proposed to come from the binding fields that are responsible for coalesced matter.  Please read the second paper.  IF it is anyone's invention - which it isn't - then it belongs to our astrophysicists in their discovery of DARK ENERGY.  That was first proposed in the 1920's already

8 ) Amplification by resonance will only work if you have a Q > 1 circuit:...
Not sure what you mean by Q.  IF you're referring to inductance - then I'm not sure that there's any such thing as a circuit without any inductance.  We've worked this circuit off a 555 switch with ONLY LED's as the load.  It works fine.

9) high Q = Current/voltage amplification and a possibility to extract the amplified energy, in certain condition...
Again.  If our experimental evidence is to be believed then we extrapolate considerable heat from nothing but the energy from those oscillations.

10) Problem unless error of my part, the battery is equivalent a to big C and L is rather low...
      So the Q of the circuit is very poor, how you can amplify energy !?
We modestly propose a solution as explained in the second part of that 2-part paper.

2nd part
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 01:29:09 PM
3rd part
 
11) Crucial question do you use resonance amplification to operate this ?
Not that I know of.
 
12) You speak about Ltseung: look like he use the same system Q amplification, if he use resonance and Q amplification his FLEET is nothing more than modified Transverter/MRA tech...
I have NO IDEA what system Lawrence uses.  I have NEVER been able to understand his circuit.  But I'm reasonably satisfied that he is using that 'spike' that you referenced in your opening gambit.

13) Stanley Meyer and Joule Thief tech are very look like to high Q resonant amplifier the C (and R also) is the water cell in the WFC and C (and R also) is the CFL in the Joule Thief/Ringer...
I'm not qualified to comment.
 
15) If this theory is CORRECT it can explain nearly all the Overunity phenomena and devices that use Coils/Caps and pulsed or AC signal...
WHAT THEORY?  We have ONLY proposed the modest thesis that current flow may have a basic material construction of magnetic dipoles which then introduce a 'charge' to the justification or flow of that material.  the THEORY has already been proved.  Again.  By our astrophysicists.  Ellis et al.

16) For eventual "Debunker": This a theory not a fact, and like every theory in te world she's can be TRUE, FALSE, or even partially TRUE...
It is NOT a THEORY.  The results are experimentally EVIDENT.  Therefore the scientific evidence is that the thesis in support of the theory - MAY INDEED BE CORRECT.  To deny this one would need to disprove the evidence.  Not the theory.  It's already there.  Enshrined in all the proof required.  Those dark energy theorists are NOT SPECULATING.

And best regards to you too Schubert.
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 21, 2012, 01:43:58 PM
Thank you about precision, so it's nothing to do with resonance theory (Hector Perez) who is he is not using Dark energy but rather Ambient Thermal (waste heat), Gravity and Time distortion effect to "fuel" the LCR resonant circuit... (To comply with conservation of energy...)

So it's more like dark energy conversion !!!

Thank you, SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 01:48:49 PM
Thank you about precision, so it's nothing to do with resonance theory (Hector Perez) who is he is not using Dark energy but rather Ambient Thermal (waste heat), Gravity and Time distortion effect to "fuel" the LCR resonant circuit... (To comply with conservation of energy...)

So it's more like dark energy conversion !!!

Thank you, SRM.


Indeed.  What we're hoping to alert all you clever scientists to is the possibility that all this energy is EVERYWHERE in magnetic fields.  And the minute one proposes that these fields are particulate - and more to the point - bipolar - then one has an ENTIRE resolution of MANY, MANY unresolved questions.  And nor does one then need to REINVENT physics.

Kindest again.  And thank Schubert - for taking the trouble not only to read all this - but to argue it.
Take good care,

Rosemary

edited. Changed 'to' to 'one'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.
OK, so your answer (buried in this statement) to my question is POSITIVE, correct?


Quote
The battery is then DISCONNECTED. NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED.
(loud buzzing sound!) Incorrect!

Rosemary seems to ignore that fact that she has MOSFETs connected such that one is configured with VGS in the forward direction, and one in the reverse direction. She is also ignorant of the fact that "Q1" is absolutely NEVER ON, and that "Q2" in fact IS ON during the oscillation. Furthermore, Rosemary is completely unaware that the -5V she believes she is applying to "Q2" is a VGS of -5V, when in actuality, it is a VGS of +5V. This positive VGS bias is indeed part of what allows the "Q2" MOSFET to oscillate.

I posted this several months ago, but Rosemary rejected it then, and she will reject it now again, even though it is the absolute truth.

Perhaps it's evident now why I have been trying to get an answer from Rosemary to my question; the answer of course being "POSITIVE".

Rosemary, you have absolutely no idea how even your own cobbled-together circuit operates.  ::) It's really quite sad how you go on and on with your nonsense as if you do, and as if you've discovered something novel....sorry you haven't.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 21, 2012, 03:40:54 PM
Rosemary Quote:
"The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED."

OK OK, the circuit is open but oscillation continue = natural oscillation due the LCR oscillator
C is the stray capacitance of the MOSFET L you inductance, R the wire of that inductance...
So in theory the "excess"  energy dissipated will come from oscillation...


Note that you can have capacitance coupling with your MOSFET !!!


But problem effectively as noted by .99 your -5V is in reality from the battery !!! It depend how you measure the signal in rapport with the 0V...


Floating point, and floating measurement can give induce the experimenter in error sometimes, especially in electronic circuit !!!


So I will still skeptic for now, but continue to study.


Best Regards SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 03:49:09 PM
OK OK, the circuit is open but oscillation continue = natural oscillation due the LCR oscillator
C is the stray capacitance of the MOSFET L you inductance, R the wire of that inductance...
This is a modulated (by the FG) continuous oscillation of a LRC circuit amplified by "Q2". The circuit (Q2) is partially CLOSED or ON while it is oscillating. It is also not a "switching circuit".

Quote
But problem effectively as noted by .99 your -5V is in reality from the battery !!!
That's incorrect, and I did not imply that. The effective +5V VGS bias is from the function generator, not the battery.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 03:58:42 PM
My dear Poynty Point,

Yet again you are managing to MISDIRECT everyone with your own confusions, which you keep insisting are OUR's.  Not only that - but you are STATING as a FACT something that is SIMPLY WRONG.  And not only that but you are AGAIN talking to the gallery instead of - with some small modicum of courtesy - addressing me directly.  You really need to learn the art of manners.  One would have thought that someone with your exposure to your profession - would do rather better.  In any event.  Far be it from me to moralise.  It seems that I'm simply required to deal with your atrocious lack of manners and as best I can.

OK, so your answer (buried in this statement) to my question is POSITIVE, correct?  (loud buzzing sound!) Incorrect!
What exactly do you mean by a loud 'buzzing sound'?  Is this from the rush of blood pressure that's induced from your own anxieties?  Certainly it's not something that I hear.  And I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT STATE THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS POSITIVE.  I've taken the trouble to detail my answer - because your question was both excessively ambiguous and entirely UNQUALIFIED.

Rosemary seems to ignore that fact that she has MOSFETs connected such that one is configured with VGS in the forward direction, and one in the reverse direction.
LOOK AGAIN.  It is absolutely NOT in reverse. 

She is also ignorant of the fact that "Q1" is absolutely NEVER ON, and that "Q2" in fact IS ON during the oscillation.
Again - my ignorance is not the issue.  You really need to stop depending on repetition to endorse your opinions.  You need to qualify them.  And indeed you're off the mark Poynty.  If Q2 is ON when Q1 is OFF then it is getting it's positive signal via the SOURCE.  That would be a non-standard application at BEST.  Are you even aware of the circuit?  I though you knew it.  After all you simulated our resuts.  PERFECTLY

Furthermore, Rosemary is completely unaware that the -5V she believes she is applying to "Q2" is a VGS of -5V, when in actuality, it is a VGS of +5V. This positive VGS bias is indeed part of what allows the "Q2" MOSFET to oscillate.
WHAT -5 or even +5 volts are you referring to.  We have NEVER APPLIED that much voltage anywhere at all.  At the most there's 2 volts applied.

I posted this several months ago, but Rosemary rejected it then, and she will reject it now again, even though it is the absolute truth.
The TRUTH?  As opposed to what?  Your lies?  My lies?  That implies a deliberate attempt at DUPING.  I trust I am NOT guilty of DUPING ANYONE AT ALL.

Perhaps it's evident now why I have been trying to get an answer from Rosemary to my question; the answer of course being "POSITIVE".
CONCENTRATE POYNTY.  The probe from the signal generator is applied DIRECTLY to the gate of Q1.  The GROUND of the probe from the signal generator is applied directly to the SOURCE.  THEREFORE - when the signal from the probe reverses to apply a negative at Q1 - then at that moment the POSITIVE signal would be applied directly to the source - which is NOT THE GATE OF Q2.

You are attempting to persuade all and sundry that there is an applied positive signal at the GATE of Q2 because the MOSFETS are REVERSED.  They are not.  That would call for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION TO THE ONE THAT WE'VE DISCLOSED AND INDEED THAT WE USE.

Therefore - far from being a 'cobbled-together circuit as you are proposing - it is you who are trying to impose some kind of configuration in that schematic that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT.
Rosemary, you have absolutely no idea how even your own cobbled-together circuit operates.  ::) It's really quite sad how you go on and on with your nonsense as if you do, and as if you've discovered something novel....sorry you haven't.
Quite apart from which - you have made this into yet another 'pissing contest' as you guys refer to it.  We would all be better served if you simply spoke science and that would - most naturally - elicit a more mannerly approach.  And then - Poynty Point.  Explain, if you can, how it is that the THE APPLIED NEGATIVE AT THE GATE OF Q1 generates a positive at Q2 given that those FETS ARE NOT REVERSED AS YOU'RE PROPOSING?  Because they assuredly ARE NOT.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 04:34:17 PM
For clarification - let me add this.

FAR FROM BEING REVERSED. 
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.
.   The DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE of Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the SOURCE OF Q2.

What you're proposing is that
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE OF Q2
.   THE DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.

IF it were the latter configuration - then your argument would hold.  I trust that makes it clearer.  In effect when we apply a negative to the gate of Q1 it is SIMULTANEOUSLY being applied to the Gate of Q2.

Go check that configuration again Poynty.  After all - it was you who brought it to everyone's attention.  Which did NOT do the damage that I suspect you hoped.

Kindest again,
Rosie Posie





Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
And I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT STATE THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS POSITIVE.
Sorry deary, by default, that is your answer.
Quote
LOOK AGAIN.  It is absolutely NOT in reverse.
I would suggest you look again, and not just assume. Even one "blind as a bat" can see that the two MOSFETs have their Gates and Sources reverse-connected.

Quote
If Q2 is ON when Q1 is OFF then it is getting it's positive signal via the SOURCE.  That would be a non-standard application at BEST.
Q1 is NEVER ON. Q2 is ON when the FG applies the positive signal across G-S.

Quote
Are you even aware of the circuit?  I though you knew it.
Quite so. Better than most I expect.

Quote
After all you simulated our resuts.  PERFECTLY
I did indeed. That should tell you something.

Quote
WHAT -5 or even +5 volts are you referring to.  We have NEVER APPLIED that much voltage anywhere at all.  At the most there's 2 volts applied.
Indeed? You've no doubt tried a whole range of offset and pulse voltages, one of which I know for some time was -5V. Several voltage levels will work, as long as Q2 is biased ON.

You should have a look at your own first paper, FIG.3. The blue trace, channel 3 is set for 10V per division, and the signal appears to cross almost two full divisions. Using your impeccable math skills, what does "2 x 10" equal in your world?

Quote
CONCENTRATE POYNTY.  The probe from the signal generator is applied DIRECTLY to the gate of Q1.  The GROUND of the probe from the signal generator is applied directly to the SOURCE.  THEREFORE - when the signal from the probe reverses to apply a negative at Q1 - then at that moment the POSITIVE signal would be applied directly to the source - which is NOT THE GATE OF Q2.
Golly, that is so FUBAR'd. You have no idea how the hell anything works. Q1 NEVER GETS TURNED ON. IT CAN"T! You are always applying a negative or zero VGS to Q1, therefore it can never be turned ON. And open your eyes; Q1's Source is most definitely connected to Q2's Gate.

Quote
You are attempting to persuade all and sundry that there is an applied positive signal at the GATE of Q2 because the MOSFETS are REVERSED.  They are not.  That would call for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION TO THE ONE THAT WE'VE DISCLOSED AND INDEED THAT WE USE.
Look again. You are the only one that can not see it Rosemary.

Quote
Explain, if you can, how it is that the THE APPLIED NEGATIVE AT THE GATE OF Q1 generates a positive at Q2 given that those FETS ARE NOT REVERSED AS YOU'RE PROPOSING?  Because they assuredly ARE NOT.
They are indeed reversed; how many times must you be advised? Surely at least one of the three readers here could oblige to assure Rosemary of this fact?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 04:51:50 PM
For clarification - let me add this.

FAR FROM BEING REVERSED. 
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.
.   The DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE of Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the SOURCE OF Q2.

What you're proposing is that
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE OF Q2
.   THE DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.

IF it were the latter configuration - then your argument would hold.  I trust that makes it clearer.  In effect when we apply a negative to the gate of Q1 it is SIMULTANEOUSLY being applied to the Gate of Q2.

Go check that configuration again Poynty.  After all - it was you who brought it to everyone's attention.  Which did NOT do the damage that I suspect you hoped.

Kindest again,
Rosie Posie

Good grief, what is wrong with you?! Could someone please advise Rosemary that she has made some serious errors here?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 05:02:35 PM
For clarification - let me add this.

FAR FROM BEING REVERSED. 
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.
.   The DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE of Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the SOURCE OF Q2.

What you're proposing is that
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE OF Q2
.   THE DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.

IF it were the latter configuration - then your argument would hold.  I trust that makes it clearer.  In effect when we apply a negative to the gate of Q1 it is SIMULTANEOUSLY being applied to the Gate of Q2.

Go check that configuration again Poynty.  After all - it was you who brought it to everyone's attention.  Which did NOT do the damage that I suspect you hoped.

Kindest again,
Rosie Posie

Here is the diagram from your first paper. It clearly shows the configuration that "I am proposing" according to you. I am not proposing anything at all, as you can see it simply IS how it is.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 05:11:41 PM
Rosemary Quote:
"The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED."

OK OK, the circuit is open but oscillation continue = natural oscillation due the LCR oscillator
There is no known LC oscillator that can continue to oscillate indefinitely.  They all diminish at varying rates due to damping.
 
C is the stray capacitance of the MOSFET L you inductance, R the wire of that inductance...
So in theory the "excess"  energy dissipated will come from oscillation...
It may be Schubert.  I just don't know.  But I do know that if I reduce the wires to almost nothing - that oscillation persists.

Note that you can have capacitance coupling with your MOSET !!!
Indeed.  But we'd need a level of stray capacitance associated with an IRPG50 that beggars belief.

But problem effectively as noted by .99 your -5V is in reality from the battery !!! It depend how you measure the signal in rapport with the 0V...
I think Poynt was trying to infer that the signal generator was 'adding' 5 volts to the mix.  It's neither here nor there.  We're measuring double the battery voltage at the peak of each oscillation.  And that's far in excess of what the signal is using.  Quite apart from which, check our claim.  We have measured this voltage and it is negative as it relates to the battery.  Which means the supply should be REDUCED by that amount. 

Floating point, and floating measurement can give induce the experimenter in error sometimes, especially in electronic circuit !!!
.  INDEED.  But we have NO FLOATING POINTS - that we've been able to find.

So I will still skeptic for now, but continue to study.
We are not looking for converts.  We're looking for discussions.  Nice to see that you're still prepared to look into this further.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 05:15:50 PM
MY DEAR POYNTY POINT

It is IMPOSSIBLE to use standard circuit representations as per our ACTUAL MOSFET - Q-Array as we refer to it.  The closest way to describe the configuration is this.

There are two MOSFETS in parallel.  The signal is applied to the common gates BETWEEN the two.  Which is an atypical application.  Therefore while they are technically in parallel - there is an eccentric positioning of the probe from the signal generator.  The explanation for the benefits to this configuration are explained in part 2 of that 2-part paper.

Here is the diagram from your first paper. It clearly shows the configuration that "I am proposing" according to you. I am not proposing anything at all, as you can see it simply IS how it is.

.99

Regards again
Rosie Pose

I might add.  I distinctly recall GroundLoop giving us all a FULL DIAGRAM of the configuration.  And when I ventured to draw the configuration as I thought would be more appropriate - you used it as an opportunity to advise the world and his wife - YET AGAIN - that this was another example of how little I understood about anything at all.  More's the pity.  You'd have honed into the problem.  But quite apart from which, there has been NO ACADEMIC who has expressed the SLIGHTEST difficulty in understanding the implications of that circuit configuration as drawn.  It seems to have been not only appropriate - but more than sufficient for a description of this eccentric positioning.

Again,
Regards. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 05:43:01 PM
You are avoiding the facts and the issue. In effect, you're up to your "silly-bugger" games again. Stop muddying the facts with that rubbish rhetoric and stick to the salient points.

Your diagram clearly shows the connections how they were for your test. I've annotated the diagram to show ONE of the reverse Gate and Source connections....kindly explain how that contradicts with my "proposal" of how the circuit is connected.

Then, we're all still waiting to hear what your calculated Gate voltage is wrt your scope shot on the Gate probe.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 05:46:43 PM
Guys, I'm withdrawing from this conversation.  I have no intention of acknowledging - let alone answering any posts from Poynty Point.  I will NOT be around for any more abuse.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 06:15:51 PM
Guys, I'm withdrawing from this conversation.  I have no intention of acknowledging - let alone answering any posts from Poynty Point.  I will NOT be around for any more abuse.

Regards,
Rosemary

Well, that's it then folks. By running away from the real salient points, Rosemary is admitting defeat, and that she has been wrong all along. She finally realizes she can not argue with what's obviously and squarely in her face...the facts.

We trust also then Rosemary, that you'll cease with your unfounded and incessant demands for the OU prize until you have ACTUAL proof of it.

It's been real. ;) Chau.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
I would add that I would be very happy to continue this conversation with anyone other than Poynty.99.  I will no longer tolerate his abuse.

HE IS MOST CERTAINLY IS LIABLE FOR THE FULL PAYMENT OF HIS OU PRIZE.  That he resorts to abuse in his efforts to deny this is a self-evidently a facile attempt at denying his liability.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 07:03:56 PM
HE IS MOST CERTAINLY IS LIABLE FOR THE FULL PAYMENT OF HIS OU PRIZE.

I am most certainly obliged to pay forward the OU Award to anyone who is successful with their application. Unfortunately for you however, you were and remain unsuccessful in that regard.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 08:19:05 PM
Guys, Now that I'm a little calmer I'll explain this for the benefit of those who are trying to understand the complexities of this Q-Array.

You will notice that the circuit only shows the positioning of the probe from the signal generator.  It is NOT showing the applied signal.  You will also note that it is applied directly to Q1.  WHEN the applied signal from the generator is POSITIVE then the circuit is closed and the battery supply can deliver a current flow.  BUT.  In our first test example we effectively set this signal that the applied signal is NEGATIVE.  Therefore the battery is NOT ABLE TO DELIVER ANY CURRENT FLOW.  Notwithstanding which the waveform first ramps up - reaches an optimum peak - and then moves freely from positive to negative in a self-sustaining oscillation.

The question then is what enables the current from the battery supply?  Or better said - what enables the positive half of each oscillation - when the applied signal at the Gate of Q1 is NEGATIVE and the ground of the probe is on the source rail of the circuit?  What Poynty is trying to argue is that IF the signal at the gate of Q1 is negative - or open - then the signal at the gate of Q2 is, correspondingly positive or closed.  And then the current from the battery supply - that part of the oscillation that is seen as being above ground - or clockwise, can EASILY move either through the source or the drain - as required through either Q1 or Q2.

But the signal at neither of the gates, Q1 nor Q2 IS EVER POSITIVE during this oscillation phase.  It is ONLY an applied NEGATIVE signal.  The signal generator's GROUND is connected to the source rail.  NOT TO THE GATE OF Q2.  Now it can be argued that IF the applied signal from the generator is negative - then relative to this the signal at the ground of that probe MAY be positive.  INDEED.  It may.  In fact we rely on this.  But I'll get there.  Meanwhile - NOTA BENE - IF the source rail now has an applied POSITIVE SIGNAL with respect to the battery voltage - then it will BLOCK the anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force.  This in the same way that a negative signal at the gate of Q1 will block the positive or clockwise current flow from the battery supply.  Therefore.  Not only would there be no flow of current from counter electromotive force - but there neither could nor would be any evidence of any oscillation at all.

SO.  What is it that enables that oscillation?  It flows in both directions through the circuit.  We see it across the load.  And we see it across the shunt at the source rail of the battery.  And the only way that this can be resolved is to apply a dual charge potential to current itself.  This certainly resolves the question.  And its explanation is detailed in that second part of that 2 part paper.

There is absolutely NO positive current flow enabled in our very first test example.  Not only this - but we have done this test - at Harti's suggestion - by applying a continual negative charge at the gate of Q1 - AND YET WE GET THAT OSCILLATION.  And again.  IF that second half of each oscillation is enabled somehow by a relative and corresponding POSITIVE charge applied to the SOURCE rail of the circuit through the signal generator's ground  - then that same CONTINUAL CHARGE APPLICATION would needs must BLOCK the counter electromotive force that is unquestionably generated by collapsing fields in the circuit components.  It's charge presentation would OPPOSE the flow from CEMF.

This rather reckless hope and simplistic objection of Poynty's to deny our claim because there's a corresponding positive signal applied at Q2 is entirely fallacious.  There MAY be a positive signal applied at the source.  BUT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q2.  And it is NOT a standard application - because it would also, most certainly prevent the flow of all that negative current during the second stage of the oscillation where the waveform moves below zero.  What Poynty is trying to do is to find some reason to REFUTE the evidence.  He would need to keep his argument within the bounds of what is EVIDENT.  He can't fabricate some baseless reason to deny the evidence - because it's convenient.  Actually he can.  But he can't do it and still hope to make his argument plausible.  Nor can he argue that there's a positive signal applied to the gate of Q2.  IT IS NOT.  There MAY BE an applied positive signal but it's at the SOURCE.  Not at that gate of Q2. NOT EVER.

Regards,
Rosemary 


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 08:25:44 PM
And just to keep the circuit in focus I'll see if I can copy it here.

Ok it took.  Now PLEASE NOTE the signal from the generator goes directly to Q1.  It can be set to - as near as dammit - permanently negative - OR OPEN.  Which indeed is one of the many tests we've recorded.  But note.  Its ground is permanently connected to the source rail - BEFORE THE SHUNT AND BEHIND THE GATE of both Q1 and Q2.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 08:40:03 PM
The signal generator's GROUND is connected to the source rail.  NOT TO THE GATE OF Q2.

Pure BS. So is the rest of that post.

The FG negative, Q1-Source, and Q2-Gate are all commoned together. A child can see this.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 08:47:52 PM
Pure BS. So is the rest of that post.

The FG negative, Q1-Source, and Q2-Gate are all commoned together. A child can see this.

.99


I rest my case.  Poynty is not able to argue his position.  He can only PRETEND that he has an argument.  And he does that by being characteristically loutish.  He has learned well from the TK's of this world.

Regards
Rosemary

And let me add that the line that he's now penciled in red  -  IS PRECISELY THE POINT AT WHICH COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE WOULD HAVE NO PATH TO FLOW TO REACH THE LOAD RESISTOR - ELEMENT - DRAIN.  That is PRECISELY our point.  In any event.  It is indeed a no win argument.  We didn't expect to.  The ONLY benefit is to remind you all that Poynty has NO INTEREST in sincerely evaluating any claim at all.  His raison d'etre is to DEFEAT any claim based on any pretext he chooses.  And that he has the manners of lout - is self-evident.

As far as we're concerned - being all of us collaborators - the most of whom are considerably better qualified than Poynty - there is a DESPERATE requirement for Poynty et al to DENY and DENY and DENY.  It's all he can do.  What he can't do is 'argue' his position.  Because then he'd have to talk science.  And his foundational knowledge is shaky - as is patently evident in his earlier refutation when he took that wild romp into analytical absurdities.  I've done with talking to Poynty.  I'll stick to talking about him as needed.

Again
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 21, 2012, 08:53:22 PM
Poynty is not able to argue his position. 

On the contrary, I just did. The evidence proving you are clearly wrong and possibly seriously ill of mind, is staring you right in the face.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 22, 2012, 04:01:36 AM
... then it will BLOCK the anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force...

Rosemary:

What "... anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force."?
Are you saying that current runs clockwise through the circuit and through the inductor, then when the current suddenly stops, it somehow tries to reverse and run counterclockwise due to the collapsing field in the inductance?  If you are, then that IS new science.

Bubba1
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on January 22, 2012, 05:01:57 AM
Gahh.. I can't believe this. Rosemary, .99......

Has anyone actually done the test, with a FLOATING ground function generator set to produce an "AC" square wave as illustrated in the little FG symbol on the diagram? In other words, if the "ground" lead from the FG is connected only where the diagram says, and the circuit has no other connection to ground..... and the signal from the generator goes from +5 V to -5 V as measured at its output..... then it looks to me like the mosfets do flip-flop. On the other hand, if the FG signal is strictly DC pulses, from 0 to +5, then .99 is right and one never turns on.

Is it possible that the two of you are arguing over a misunderstanding about the FG's output?


Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.

ETA: Here's a simple test. Take 2 LEDS and hook them "back to back", that is, anode of one to cathode of the other and vice versa. Now hook up your FG, ground to one anode-cathode pair and "hot" to the other. Can you make them both flash alternately? Of course you can.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 22, 2012, 06:08:20 AM
Rosemary:

What "... anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force."?
Are you saying that current runs clockwise through the circuit and through the inductor, then when the current suddenly stops, it somehow tries to reverse and run counterclockwise due to the collapsing field in the inductance?  If you are, then that IS new science.

Bubba1
NO Bubba - absolutely NOT.  I am saying that the voltage waveform across the shunt indicates a reversing polarity during the oscillation.  It is our standard model that tells us that current flows in the direction of the greatest applied potential difference.  Therefore RELATIVE to our circuit - IF the applied voltage is positive then the current flow will be greater than zero.  And IF, the applied voltage is negative then the current flow will be less than zero.  If you are presuming that when the current flow from the battery is interrupted and that CEMF is generating a NEGATIVE voltage potential  but YET the current flow does NOT reverse polarity - then this is NOT EVIDENT.  This is not the best proof - because a clamp meter can't measure accurate amperage at high frequencies.  BUT.  IF and when you apply those clamp type ammeters across the source rail - it shows a zero DC current - and only registers an amperage if it is sent on AC.

I have heard that there's a school of thinking that needs that current to flow in the same direction notwithstanding the reversal of the applied voltage. We have NOT found evidence of this.  Certainly not on our circuit.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 22, 2012, 07:51:33 AM
Actually guys - this may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection.  The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain.  Which is standard convention.  Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls.  And it SERIOUSLY falls.  It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5.  Given a  6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts.  At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage.  And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative.  WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING.  In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT.  Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating.  We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle.  But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.

Now.  If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second.  And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery.  For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second -  during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS.  IN A MOMENT?  That's hardly likely.  And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours?  As are ours?  And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time.  DO THE MATH.  It beggars belief.  In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.

NOW.  You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage.  Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS.  Well.  It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this.  And in a way he's right.  There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO?  What gives?  Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse.  His own simulation software measures it.  Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH. 

But science is science.  And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere.  So.  How to explain it?  How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V?  Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope -  that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply.  Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail +0.5V.  Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material.  WHICH IS REASONABLE.  Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.

OR DOES IT?  If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load.  Over time.  In fact over the duration.  It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating.  It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER.  Not even under fully discharged conditions.  So?  Again.  WHAT GIVES?  Clearly something else is coming into the equation.  Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all.  And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY.  Well within their capabilities. 

SO.  BACK TO THE QUESTION?  WHAT GIVES?  We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail.  And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground.   Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING?  UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit?  Unless the switch is CLOSED.  IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED?  In which case?  Would it not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit?  IF so.  Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit.  It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED.  It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit?  In which case?  We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP.  What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components.  Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source. 

It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you.  Sorry this took so long.  It needs all those words to explain this.  The worst of it is that there's more to come.   ::)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 22, 2012, 08:53:53 AM
Hello again TK

Nice to see that you're coming into this discussion.

Gahh.. I can't believe this. Rosemary, .99......

Has anyone actually done the test, with a FLOATING ground function generator set to produce an "AC" square wave as illustrated in the little FG symbol on the diagram? In other words, if the "ground" lead from the FG is connected only where the diagram says, and the circuit has no other connection to ground..... and the signal from the generator goes from +5 V to -5 V as measured at its output..... then it looks to me like the mosfets do flip-flop. On the other hand, if the FG signal is strictly DC pulses, from 0 to +5, then .99 is right and one never turns on.
I see this now.  Poynty Point is either right - or?  He's right?  That's an interesting take.  But you see this TK.  We get that SAME oscillation with the application of a 555 switch with the supply shared with the same circuit battery supply.  There are no differences - except in our range of testing options.  THEN.  If either one or other MOSFET was conducting current from the battery - how exactly do you EXPLAIN that extraordinary voltage swing that is measured at the batteries?  It goes from fully charged to NOTHING - and, on some higher applications of applied energies - TO A NEGATIVE VALUE?  Do you, like Poynty, prefer to think that it is capable of discharging its potential - to such EXTRAORDINARY EFFECT?  That's an awful lot more energy measured over the circuit than we can reasonably account for.

Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.
What can I say TK?  Except that, as always, your experimental skills are monumental.  Unfortunately - my own are more pedantic.  And I prefer to stick to the point.

ETA: Here's a simple test. Take 2 LEDS and hook them "back to back", that is, anode of one to cathode of the other and vice versa. Now hook up your FG, ground to one anode-cathode pair and "hot" to the other. Can you make them both flash alternately? Of course you can.
That's a comfort.  If I get around to doing this test - I"ll let you know.  We have, indeed, used two banks of LED's to our circuit in place of that element resistor number.  And surprisingly, the one bank stays permanently lit - no flashing - while the other stays dark.  Also rather puzzling.  But also in line with what we predicted in terms of a reversing current flow. 

Kindest as ever
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 22, 2012, 11:54:53 AM

Tinselkoala:
Quote
Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.


Yeah, Good to see that the Q amplification theory is already tested and according to you claims Working !!!!
Can't wait to build my MRA now...
According their claims successful MRA was  reproduced by Joel McCLAIN & Norman WOOTAN and Gregory HODOWANEC...
I have designed to have Q = 10 in load the Q is only limited by the saturation of the core...
If the core would not saturate, the circuit would have a Q of 7900  :o :o in unloaded state !!!


Yeah, it's so exciting now !  ;D




Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 22, 2012, 04:55:30 PM
Ok.  Now.  As a summation.  Poynty has dismissed our claim based on HIS claim that there's a commonality at the source rail that then applies a positive signal directly to the Gate of Q2 when the negative signal from the signal generator is applied to Q1.  It's that 'flip flop' condition that TK referred to.  My counter argument is that IF this were the case then that positive signal at the source would, in turn, REPEL the NEGATIVE signal from those collapsing fields.  What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  You can't pick out one condition and then ignore it in another.  But ACTUALLY the argument goes deeper yet.  It involves a discussion of the standard concept of how current flows and - indeed - what is it?  I won't bore you all with our proposals on this.  You know them.  They're in that second paper of ours.   :D

In any event - in order to confirm his own counter proposal - he first needs to IGNORE that wild swing of the battery that simply cannot be explained if the battery was indeed connected at either Q1 OR Q2.  Unless of course he could argue that the circuit was conducting upwards of 72 000 amps per second per battery.  And that's also assuming that he's using a 20 amp hour battery and not the monsters that we're actually using.  Which, obviously would take that amperage flow to the outer reaches of our stratosphere.  You see the problem?  It is the REQUIREMENT to dismiss anything in reach - as rudely as possibly - that possibly smells of an over unity result.  And it's never enough to just dismiss the claim.  It requires a parade of abuse that your average citizen would be shy to expose - privately OR publicly.  Nor is there any attempt at any kind of discussion around any pertinent evidence.  The discussion is CLOSED.  And I put it to you - that this is PRECISELY the point where our forums are CORRUPTED.  And how our nay sayers get away with INTELLECTUAL MURDER.  How is anyone ever to progress anything at all - when the measured evidence is IGNORED or, alternatively, DENIED?  Just can't be done. 

Which is sad really.  As reasonable discussion would probably add some valuable development of this energy source that we're all of us so interested in.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edit.  I need to stress this.  That curious oscillation - that is perpetuated for the duration that a negative signal is applied at the gate of Q1 is the absolute PROOF that the energy that is being delivered in that circuit is from an alternate supply to the battery supply source. Which is also precisely our object in using that circuit configuration for our analysis.

another edit.  Which means that Poynty Point STILL needs to evaluate our evidence in line with standard protocols.  OR PAY UP. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 22, 2012, 07:41:37 PM
...and the signal from the generator goes from +5 V to -5 V as measured at its output..... then it looks to me like the mosfets do flip-flop. On the other hand, if the FG signal is strictly DC pulses, from 0 to +5, then .99 is right and one never turns on.
The MOSFETs don't flip-flop. The tests seem to indicate they operate the device in two slightly different modes; one where Q1 is always OFF and Q2 alternates between ON and OFF, and a mode where the opposite occurs (lower battery voltage and offset setting). I've analysed the mode where Q2 is active and Q1 not. In this case, the FG offset is set to the NEGATIVE side (offset knob pulled and turned ccw), such that the FG output is never positive enough to turn Q1 ON, but because Q2-G is connected to the FG negative, this does turn Q2 ON (two negatives make a positive wrt Q2's VGS).

Quote
Is it possible that the two of you are arguing over a misunderstanding about the FG's output?
I'm arguing that Rosemary does not know how to read a diagram (she can't see the common connections I listed), nor does she know how MOSFETs operate.

Incidentally Rosemary, a correction to your paper; you erroneously list the FG model as this:

IsoTech GFG 324

The correct model number of the FG used is this:

Instek GFG-8216A

You're welcome ;)

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 22, 2012, 11:46:26 PM
I wonder if I could impose on any one of those three readers that Poynty Point actually talks to? Rather cryptically, I might add.  That's during those brief spells that he's not rather publicly trying to horsewhip REALLY old women.  Someone needs to explain to him that we are all indeed VERY grateful that he's proposed that 'correction' to our paper.  DELIGHTED to see that it's the only proposed correction.  And, under usual circumstances I, and indeed, ALL the collaborators would gladly oblige.  But we would then need to pretend that we were using an  -   Instek GFG-8216A.  Our model is - in fact a IsoTech GFG 324.     
 
 
Incidentally Rosemary, a correction to your paper; you erroneously list the FG model as this:

IsoTech GFG 324

The correct model number of the FG used is this:

Instek GFG-8216A

You're welcome ;)

.99

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 23, 2012, 12:05:16 AM
Right,

Please post a link to the user's manual or glossy, or web page advertisement for the GFG 324. Or better yet, post a pic of your test apparatus used for the data etc. in the paper. ;)

The unit you used in your video demo was the one I mentioned, the Instek GFG-8216A. Isotech does however make the same model as Instek, i.e. in the 8200 series.
http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html (http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html)

If you've changed FG's since that time, then my mistake, however I've not found a model 324. I believe 324 is the model number for your LeCroy scope.

First pic is from your video, second is from ad.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 12:16:56 AM
And there's more?  Golly.

The MOSFETs don't flip-flop. The tests seem to indicate they operate the device in two slightly different modes; one where Q1 is always OFF and Q2 alternates between ON and OFF,
Yes indeed.  I SEE this now.  This means that somehow the applied signal at the Q2 would be positive and then negative and then positive and so on.  That would INDEED explain EVERYTHING.  Which also would mean that our signal generator is simply NOT FUNCTIONING.  I'll need to take this up with the manufacturers.  Not a good thing.  Not a good thing at all.  What ever next?

... and a mode where the opposite occurs (lower battery voltage and offset setting).
  Which would mean what?  That the signal at Q1 would then be positive and then negative and then positive and so on?  While Q2 just sits in the sidelines and sulks?  Good thinking.  It's about as reasonable an explanation for this anomaly as ANY rather frantic disclaimer would need.  It's not however, STRICTLY in line with the evidence.  Unless, of course there's anything more than deliberate ambivalence in that reference to 'offset setting'.  Does he mean that the offset is then also correspondingly lower?  Or does he mean that the offset is then 'higher'?  Either way.  It's wonderfully confusing.  Tell him from me that this is very well done indeed.

Regards
Rosemary

took out the balance of this post as it's falling into a black hole.  I don't want to be sucked in.   8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 12:31:31 AM
Right,

Please post a link to the user's manual or glossy, or web page advertisement for the GFG 324. Or better yet, post a pic of your test apparatus used for the data etc. in the paper. ;)

The unit you used in your video demo was the one I mentioned, the Instek GFG-8216A. Isotech does however make the same model as Instek, i.e. in the 8200 series.
http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html (http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html)

If you've changed FG's since that time, then my mistake, however I've not found a model 324. I believe 324 is the model number for your LeCroy scope.

First pic is from your video, second is from ad.

.99

My question here is WHO EXACTLY is Poynty talking to?  I'm confused by his rather uncharacteristic use of the word 'PLEASE'?  That's SURELY NOT our Poynty Point?  Good heavens.  In any event - I certainly don't have the wherewith all to post any pictures.  I have no camera at the moment.  More's the pity.  And even if I did - there's no need.  The usual practice is for the collaborators to SIGN OFF on the details of the paper when they're all satisfied that the facts are clearly and correctly presented.  And we've all signed off.  But as a rule, those readers of those papers usually take the representations at face value.  There is a presumption that there is no deliberate effort to misrepresent the facts.  And it would be a rather trivial FACT to distort - when that distortion may negate the entire paper.  I would have thought?

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 01:09:02 AM
Now guys - just to keep the argument in full focus.  There are more confusions.  If there WERE a 'flip flop' condition where the battery simply used either Q1 OR Q2 - as was made available - then - we must also acknowledge that the battery would then ALSO be delivering it's current with very little interruption ALL THE TIME.  At worst there would be a 'spike' as it moved from the path of the one transistor and then to the other.  On the whole though the waveform would show a voltage that is CONTINUOUSLY greater than zero.

Which is why we are now hearing the argument that there's a mystical 'on one moment' 'off the next' and so on - so that it has a CHANCE for the circuit to construct that waveform - that oscillation. I see the problem now.  And it would have helped if I'd both seen it and mentioned it before.  This is when our 'naysayers' for want of a more polite term - actually serve science well.  They hone into the problems of their own counter proposals.  And gradually the questions are THRASHED OUT.  Never a bad thing.  Just an enormous pity that it cannot all be done more courteously.  It would, on the whole, encourage a greater participation. 

I only say this because I am in receipt of an inordinate amount of mail from those who do not participate on these forums.  I suspect that - given a less fraught environment - then they would be more ready to engage.  Much needed.  As there of many really excellent arguments that I hear from them.  And indeed, proposals for different kinds of tests.  It's  something that - perhaps - we should all work on.  Since I see that Poynty is trying to converse - albeit through TK and not myself - then perhaps too - it would be as well that I also desist with my sarcasm.  But then Poynty Point - you need to reign in your appalling manners.  They're shameful.

Regards,
Rosemary

edited
had to change 'there's' to 'there are'.  It was irritating me.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 01:32:42 AM
This is the argument that I was trying to reference earlier...

The MOSFETs don't flip-flop. The tests seem to indicate they operate the device in two slightly different modes; one where Q1 is always OFF and Q2 alternates between ON and OFF, and a mode where the opposite occurs (lower battery voltage and offset setting). I've analysed the mode where Q2 is active and Q1 not. In this case, the FG offset is set to the NEGATIVE side (offset knob pulled and turned ccw), such that the FG output is never positive enough to turn Q1 ON, but because Q2-G is connected to the FG negative, this does turn Q2 ON (two negatives make a positive wrt Q2's VGS).
Note this part of the concluding sentence.  '...but because the Q2-G (presumably G stands for GATE) is connected to the FG negative....'  Just that.  We were given to understand that it was NOT.  I proposed that it WAS.  My proposal was blasted with a blistering reminder that I KNEW NOT WHEREOF I SPOKE.  Why then are YOU now proposing this?  And IF INDEED it IS connected to the negative - then HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO ARGUE THAT THE BATTERY IS ABLE TO DELIVER ANY ENERGY? 

I'm arguing that Rosemary does not know how to read a diagram (she can't see the common connections I listed), nor does she know how MOSFETs operate.
ON THE CONTRARY.  I have a fair and working knowledge of how MOSFETS work and I most CERTAINLY CAN SEE THOSE COMMON CONNECTIONS. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on January 23, 2012, 01:38:44 AM

If the core would not saturate, the circuit would have a Q of 7900  :o :o in unloaded state !!!


Yeah, it's so exciting now !  ;D

Yes, exactly. So a non-saturable core material is preferred, as each "slosh" as the energy goes between inductance and capacitance is an opportunity for energy to enter the system from outside and reinforce the resonance. Careful selection of your resonant frequency is also important here.... if you push the "swing" at too fast or too slow a rate you won't get optimal coupling of your input power to your resonant storage, so if you're looking to pick up energy from outside the system you need to have some idea of how to match its frequency. (My little contribution to the general theoretical BS around Tesla and MEGs and so on.)
Air (vacuum) works pretty good for a core material at the energies we are using. I hope you've had a chance to look at my TinselKoil videos on YT. I am using a similar switched-mosfet circuit as Rosemary does (except that I use a full bridge -- 4 mosfets -- instead of essentially 2), but because I know a bit about what I'm doing, I've gotten much better results.

@Rosemary, you seem to have trouble accepting that circuits like these can have current peaks in the multi-kiloAmpere range. Let me assure you this is not only very possible but common. POWER, as you have finally figured out, is the rate of energy dissipation. As a rate, it incorporates a time dimension. If the time duration of a high-current spike is small, there will be little POWER in it, hence little heating of conductors, and so on.

@.99-- yes, I can see that now-- the mosfet behaviour will be sensitive to the relationship between the battery voltage and the FG's output voltage level, and the mosfets will interact through the circuit's capacitances. It would be interesting to apply the FG's signal through an appropriately chosen series capacitor, to assure only AC coupling.
It's clear from the blather above that Rosemary really still doesn't understand her circuit, nor the basics of power measurement, and most especially artifacts induced by measurement probes and other wiring. Still--- isn't it relatively easy to build this circuit, or sim it, and show how it actually behaves?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 02:23:45 AM
Yes, exactly. So a non-saturable core material is preferred, as each "slosh" as the energy goes between inductance and capacitance is an opportunity for energy to enter the system from outside and reinforce the resonance. Careful selection of your resonant frequency is also important here.... if you push the "swing" at too fast or too slow a rate you won't get optimal coupling of your input power to your resonant storage, so if you're looking to pick up energy from outside the system you need to have some idea of how to match its frequency. (My little contribution to the general theoretical BS around Tesla and MEGs and so on.)
Air (vacuum) works pretty good for a core material at the energies we are using. I hope you've had a chance to look at my TinselKoil videos on YT. I am using a similar switched-mosfet circuit as Rosemary does (except that I use a full bridge -- 4 mosfets -- instead of essentially 2), but because I know a bit about what I'm doing, I've gotten much better results.
Golly TK.  This is not actually addressed to me but I wonder if I could impose on you to explain what you mean by 'slosh'?  And what exactly do you mean by non-saturable core mateial?  And how does this toing and froing of energy between capacitance and inductance allow for energy to enter into the system from outside>  Outside where?  The vacuum of space, the vacuum around that non-saturable (whatever that means) core material.  Around the atoms in that material?  From our atmosphere?  What?  And what exactly is that energy?  From outside?  What does it do?  Are you proposing that all we need to do is set up any kind of really pacey resonance - and we'll be able to tap into INFINITE ENERGY SOURCES?  Somehow?  Rather magically I might add.  As Schubert has mentioned.  This is REALLY exciting.

@Rosemary, you seem to have trouble accepting that circuits like these can have current peaks in the multi-kiloAmpere range. Let me assure you this is not only very possible but common. POWER, as you have finally figured out, is the rate of energy dissipation. As a rate, it incorporates a time dimension. If the time duration of a high-current spike is small, there will be little POWER in it, hence little heating of conductors, and so on.
I'm more comfortable here.  It seems that I'm actually being addressed.  Thank you for that.  I was rather concerned that you were ignoring me.  But with reference to your statements.  I have absolutely NO DIFFICULTY in picturing waveforms that have their peaks in the multi-kilo - ampere range - as you put it.  What the hell. Make it even higher.  The multi - giga ampere range.  I'm really, really imaginative.  What I have difficulty believing is that one can ever actually measure at that pace.  No doubt doable.  But NOT within the ambit of those rather excellent scopes we use.  Also I'm rather concerned that you propose that the slower the pace - or as you rather ponderously refer to it - the 'time dimension' - then the less power in it. What do you mean by 'slower'?  That the spike is for a shorter duration?  Or that it occurs less frequently?  We have measured spikes on other tests that are there for very, very small 'moments' - of very short duration - and they COOK our resistor.  Indeed we've referenced one such in our 4th and final test of our paper.  You see my problem TK.  It's with the terms that you all bandy around - without any kind of qualification.  And then you presume that any of us reading here are able to understand it.  We'd first need to read you mind.  God forbid. 

@.99-- yes, I can see that now-- the mosfet behaviour will be sensitive to the relationship between the battery voltage and the FG's output voltage level, and the mosfets will interact through the circuit's capacitances. It would be interesting to apply the FG's signal through an appropriately chosen series capacitor, to assure only AC coupling.
It is the very first time that I've read that the MOSFET interacts with the circuit capacitance.  I thought the MOSFET was simply a solid state switching device that was triggered at the gate by an applied signal.  Who would have thought?  The explanations in the standard model are clearly very misleading.

It's clear from the blather above that Rosemary really still doesn't understand her circuit, nor the basics of power measurement, and most especially artifacts induced by measurement probes and other wiring. Still--- isn't it relatively easy to build this circuit, or sim it, and show how it actually behaves?
You really need to explain where my blather is INCORRECT.  I've mentioned this before.  It can only improve the general tone of this thread if we all tried to refer to the arguments and NOT to allegations about anything at all.  Otherwise one is left with the distinct impression that you've made a valid point.  Again.  God forbid.

And indulge me here.  I need to go back to this point again.
Air (vacuum) works pretty good for a core material at the energies we are using. I hope you've had a chance to look at my TinselKoil videos on YT. I am using a similar switched-mosfet circuit as Rosemary does (except that I use a full bridge -- 4 mosfets -- instead of essentially 2), but because I know a bit about what I'm doing, I've gotten much better results.
May I ask you to not use this thread to advertise yourself?  Or your work?  I only say this because I'm a little concerned that you're trying to steer this discussion away from the point.  We absolutely are not, to the best of my knowledge, discussing anything other than our claim related to our circuit.  Golly.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you are anxious to take this argument onto some kind of irrelevant discussion on how to access strange energies - that have absolutely nothing to do with the standard model or our claim.  That way you will, MOST CERTAINLY, be able to corrupt this thread.  Which again - I am sure is NOT your intention.

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 23, 2012, 02:32:45 AM
Still--- isn't it relatively easy to build this circuit, or sim it, and show how it actually behaves?
I've simulated this circuit to the nth degree, and I understand fairly well how it functions. I've also produced very similar results to Rosemary's own with my simulation, and she agrees that I have (I think this is the only thing we DO agree on).

FYI, Rosemary's circuit is not a switching circuit that builds up amplitude via resonance. It is a linear single-MOSFET amplifier that with the right amount of bias, bursts into oscillation (ever see a MOSFET audio amp oscillate?).

Regards,
.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 23, 2012, 11:13:22 AM
Quote
FYI, Rosemary's circuit is not a switching circuit that builds up amplitude via resonance. It is a linear single-MOSFET amplifier that with the right amount of bias, bursts into oscillation (ever see a MOSFET audio amp oscillate?).Regards,.99

 1: If her circuit have no amplification of the oscillation it will be difficult to have OU...

@ Rosemary:

Hector Perez speak that the energy come from 1) Ambient thermal, 2) Gravity distortion(Anti-gravity) 3) Time distortion...
Work done and energy is two different things: if you can recycle energy you can done with the same Joule, work over over and over...

1) Energy is never destroyed or created but always recycled...
2) Work is not conserved, but energy always...
3) Work and energy are different...
4) Perpetual energy is not possible (energy conserved) but perpetual WORK is possible...
5) This is also my view of things, I'am also skeptic about to create energy out of nothing...

It's only a theory but an attractive theory that can allow OU while fully comply Conservation of Energy...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 11:59:16 AM
Schubert - I agree with every single one of these postulates at some level.  Here's our arguments
.  Thermal is this magnetic dipole OUT of a field condition.  It is then chaotic.
.  Gravity is the interaction of a toroidal three dimensional field of dipoles with the orderly binding fields in coalesced matter
.  The particle in the field is invisible as it exceeds light speed.
.  Therefore it does not manifest in our time frame - except when the field loses it structure to become chaotic
.  Which is when it also manifests its thermal properties and is measured as heat.
.  Out of the field - in a chaotic condition -  it also manifests as visible flame - sparks - fire  which is when the dipole is slow
.  When those dipoles are in their 'hot' state they are not binding atoms
.  When they bind atoms they then decay back into an orderly field formation - to bind those atoms.
.  Effectively the 'flame disappears
.  In transferring their energy from chaotic to orderly - or from orderly to chaotic they are able to influence matter
.  Which means that - given the right conditions they can move from orderly back to chaotic back to orderly - into perpetuity

Which I think covers every point you've made here.  It is interesting Schubert.  I am well aware of the fact that we've discovered nothing new.  The only benefit that there is in our own proposals is that if you propose that magnetic dipole in a magnetic field - then it resolves all those outstanding questions in science.  And there are many.  We've been looking at the electric field for too too long, without actually determining its properties.

I'm attaching a link to my personal quarrel with the standard model in it's methods of resolving those outstanding questions.  You may want to dip in there.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html)

KIndest regards,
Rosemary

Hector Perez speak that the energy come from 1) Ambient thermal, 2) Gravity distortion(Anti-gravity) 3) Time distortion...
Work done and energy is two different things: if you can recycle energy you can done with the same Joule, work over over and over...

1) Energy is never destroyed or created but always recycled...
2) Work is not conserved, but energy always...
3) Work and energy are different...
4) Perpetual energy is not possible (energy conserved) but perpetual WORK is possible...
5) This is also my view of things, I'am also skeptic about to create energy out of nothing...

It's only a theory but an attractive theory that can allow OU while fully comply Conservation of Energy...

edited. I added a point.  Sorry. You may want to refresh the page.  I can't remember where.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 23, 2012, 02:38:15 PM
1: If her circuit have no amplification of the oscillation it will be difficult to have OU...
The circuit bursts into oscillation due to the bias and a healthy serving of stray inductance in the Gate and Source leads. The oscillation becomes amplified where she is taking her so-called "battery" measurement, because the probe is actually on the load, and NOT the battery terminal. There is a substantial length of wire connecting the two, and hence a significant amount of inherent inductance. The voltage at the load can be on the order of 200Vpp or so.

This is ONE of the fundamental flaws in the measurements that her team has taken, and misinterpreted as "the battery voltage". Clearly it is not, and I've pointed this out several times. Read my analysis Schubert, and you will see exactly what I am referring to.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 04:39:25 PM
Poynty,

The oscillation most certainly does not depend on length of lead.  We've easily generated that oscillation using entirely different circuits with the signal from 555 switches.  And where  the loads are nothing but LED's and/or virtually any kind of load up to and including a solder iron.  In both these examples it results in a negative wattage.  And in none of those tests - and certainly in neither of these two load test examples that I've mentioned here - were the loads connected to our own batteries. AND in at least one test we've used an alkaline type battery.  Can't remember what type but it's those typical torch battery numbers. At a guess I would say that the length of wiring - including the wires in the switching circuit - was under 16 inches - or thereby - including the connections to those batteries.

Therefore, with respect, this is simply not correct.
 
The circuit bursts into oscillation due to the bias and a healthy serving of stray inductance in the Gate and Source leads.
While parasitic oscillations are most certainly the result of transistors in parallel - there is no paralleling in that 555 switching configuration.  Just the use of 2 transistors.  And that oscillation has very little in common with parasitic oscillations as it PERSISTS for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1. 

The oscillation becomes amplified where she is taking her so-called "battery" measurement, because the probe is actually on the load, and NOT the battery terminal.
THIS MUCH IS CORRECT.  We have LITERALLY applied the probe DIRECTLY to the terminal of our own batteries - applied a single 12 volt battery to the test apparatus - and YET WE SEE THAT WILD VOLTAGE SWING ACROSS THOSE BATTERIES - when it gets into oscillation.  I've already argued this.  Not only that but I believe I've informed you fully on those results.  They were those early claims of yours where you again insisted that everything was due to the lengths of wire that we use.  But back to the point.  The probe is only able to read voltage potential of the collapsing magnetic fields from the circuit material.  It most certainly is NOT reading the battery voltage.  And why would that be?  Could it be that the battery is 'disconnected'?  At both gates - Q1 and Q2?  If NOT, and as I've argued - we MUST therefore conclude that the battery is DISCHARGING at a rate of delivery that defies the evidence. 

There is a substantial length of wire connecting the two, and hence a significant amount of inherent inductance. The voltage at the load can be on the order of 200Vpp or so.
There it is again.  Do you mean by Vpp - Voltage peak to peak OR voltage point to point or virtual power plant - OR WHAT?  It would help if you would define your terms.

This is ONE of the fundamental flaws in the measurements that her team has taken, and misinterpreted as "the battery voltage". Clearly it is not, and I've pointed this out several times. Read my analysis Schubert, and you will see exactly what I am referring to.
Not at all.  I've explained this.  And may I please ask you to read OUR claim on OUR experimental evidence?  As opposed to your own?  Our results are significantly at variance.  The only similarity is that you also compute a negative wattage.

Regards,
Rosemary

Edited.
Sorry I've been struggling to get rid of that nested quote.  Golly.
And have now also changed 'so' to 'NOT'.  That was a serious oversight.  lol
Had to change 3 transistors to 2 transistors.  Sorry.  I've just seen it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 23, 2012, 05:07:30 PM
Anyway Poynty, here's the thing.

The nub of this argument pivots on the some kind of explanation for the positive voltage that is measured during each half of that oscillation.  The standard assumption is that this is being delivered by the battery supply - your first argument based on the fact that there's a commonality at the positive terminals.  IF this argument were valid then it would mean that variously

.   The battery was able to find a path through the gate of Q2 where you argued that there would be a positive signal. 
.   BUT - if the battery is discharging then it is discharging in the region of upwards of 72 000 amps per battery - per oscillation.  Clearly this is not correct.
.   Also.  It would then be able to deliver either through Q1 or Q2 AS REQUIRED.
.   Which would result in a continuous discharge at a greater than zero voltage.  Which is not evident.  It crosses zero every time.
.   The ground of the signal generator is not applying a positive signal to the gate of Q2.  It's applied a positive signal to the source rail.
.   Under all circumstances and in terms of the standard model - this would BLOCK CEMF.

IF every half of each oscillation was delivered by the battery then notwithstanding - the wattage measured to have been delivered is still LESS than the wattage that is measured to have been returned to the battery supply.  I'm only arguing this to remind you that the evidence suggests that THERE IS SIGNIFICANT ENERGY CAN BE MEASURED ON THE CIRCUIT WHILE THE BATTERY IS APPARENTLY AND ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED.

Regards.
Rosemary
edited.
Modified those bullet points and the emphases
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 01:51:41 AM
.   The ground of the signal generator is not applying a positive signal to the gate of Q2.  It's applied a positive signal to the source rail.

You've misunderstood the full meaning of what I said.

The first inversion is caused by connecting the FG- to the Q2-Gate, and the FG+ to the Q2-Source. It would normally be connected in reverse of this.

The second inversion is caused by introducing negative offset to the FG (as shown in the video), such that the FG output, if measured with a + probe on the + terminal and - probe on the - terminal, would measure a negative voltage when the FG output is in a LOW state, and a 0V or slightly positive voltage when the FG output is in a HI state.

The resulting Q2 VGS voltage is such that Q2 will turn partially ON (the bias) and completely OFF.

As Q1 G-S is connected in reverse of Q2, Q1 is always OFF with this setting.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 02:23:16 AM
You've misunderstood the full meaning of what I said.

The first inversion is caused by connecting the FG- to the Q2-Gate, and the FG+ to the Q2-Source.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first inversion?  What inversion?  Are you talking about an inverted waveform across the battery?  Or across the load?  Nor do we connect the FG- (presumably function generators ground) to the Q2's Gate.  We connect the signal generator's ground to the source rail.  It's difficult to argue this unless we use the same words to mean the same things.   

It would normally be connected in reverse of this.
How?  I simply don't understand what you're trying to say.  Normally one connects the probe EXACTLY as we show it.  We NEVER change that position.  The only thing that changes is the applied signal to that probe.  Which can be positive or negative.  When it's negative then it opens the circuit and prevents a discharge from the battery.  When it's closed or positive then it allows a discharge from the battery.  And the readings - positive or negative - are relative to the battery supply. BUT ALWAYS IT STAYS WERE WE PUT IT.  AT THE GATE OF Q1.

The second inversion is caused by introducing negative offset to the FG (as shown in the video), such that the FG output, if measured with a + probe on the + terminal and - probe on the - terminal, would measure a negative voltage when the FG output is in a LOW state, and a 0V or slightly positive voltage when the FG output is in a HI state.
Again, with respect.  I'm not following you.  What inversion?  And which terminals?  Are you referring to the battery terminals? 

The resulting Q2 VGS voltage is such that Q2 will turn partially ON (the bias) and completely OFF.

As Q1 VGS is connected in reverse of Q2, Q1 is always OFF with this setting.
Nope.  I just don't understand you.  I'm struggling here.  Let me know what you mean by inversion and I'll give this another shot. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 02:28:16 AM
As an example; If one was to take the FG leads that are connected to the G and S of a MOSFET (normally + to the Gate, and - to the Source), and swap them around, THAT would be an inversion.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 02:31:51 AM
As an example; If one was to take the FG leads that are connected to the G and S of a MOSFET (normally + to the Gate, and - to the Source), and swap them around, THAT would be an inversion.

OK.  Then the answer is simple.  We DO NOT connect the G (gate) and S (source) of the MOSFET like this.  Ever.  But I think I'm getting into your argument.  I'll give it another shot.

BRB (be right back) 8)
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 03:11:13 AM
OK.  We now understand that 'inversion' is defined as follows 'the physical transposition of the signal generator's probe from the gate of Q1 TO the gate of Q2.  In which case - in order to function - then the ground of the signal generator would still be applied to the Source.   And the assumption is then made that the Q2 is the 'functioning' transistor.  In which event Q2 has simply REPLACED Q1.  This would result in a voltage that is steady - greater than zero.  Until - again that switch was opened by the application of a negative signal applied to that gate.  There would be no evident inversion of the waveform.  It would remain greater than zero.  There would simply be an alternate path opened.

So.  When you state, as you do here ...
The first inversion is caused by connecting the FG- to the Q2-Gate, and the FG+ to the Q2-Source. It would normally be connected in reverse of this.
...then I'm not sure that it's right.  The ground of the signal generator (FG-) is NOT connected to Q2-Gate.  It's connected to Q2 source.  It's only link to the drain is via that Gate - through the drain rail.  The logical and unarguable assumption then is as you've stated it.  The applied signal from the signal generator (FG) has simply changed from Q1 to Q2.  The one has replaced the other.  In which case?  We SHOULD, by rights, have a continual DC current flow discharged by the battery with, at the most, some spiking at the transitional phases of the duty cycle.  That's NOT evident.

The second inversion is caused by introducing negative offset to the FG (as shown in the video), such that the FG output, if measured with a + probe on the + terminal and - probe on the - terminal, would measure a negative voltage when the FG output is in a LOW state, and a 0V or slightly positive voltage when the FG output is in a HI state.
Ok.  I think I'm beginning to see it.  The applied positive signal now changes to a negative signal.  You're suggesting that during that transitional phase then the actual applied voltage from the signal itself, gradually diminishes - over time - from say - +5 volts to -5 volts - as the signal changes and the new voltage level kicks in.  Which is fair comment.  BUT.  While the signal at Q2 is changing back to an 'open' or 'negative' signal - then simultaneously the signal at the gate of Q2 is changing in anti phase.  The sum of both those changes would allow precisely the same amount of delivery of current from the battery.  What it would do is possibly show a small 'drop' from say a high of 12 volts to a zero - then back to 12 volts.  In a partial oscillation that would still be entirely above ground. There would be no oscillation as seen in our waveforms as the current flow from that applied battery voltage would always be maintained.

The resulting Q2 VGS voltage is such that Q2 will turn partially ON (the bias) and completely OFF.
During which time there is some moment when the applied signal is crossing zero and there's no voltage at all. Agreed.  But that would still not account for the zero crossing as evident in the oscillation. See the above point.

As Q1 G-S is connected in reverse of Q2, Q1 is always OFF with this setting.
Q1 ground source is not connected in reverse.  It is never disconnected from the circuit. 

Regards,
Rosemary

added - two points - an another - so.  3 points added.  I hope they're highlighted.
and took out 'to' - repetitive
Sorry and a whole lot more corrections.  I really need to check the 'preview' more often.  Apologies.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 03:42:52 AM
So.  When you state, as you do here ......then I'm not sure that it's right.  The ground of the signal generator (FG-) is NOT connected to Q2-Gate.  It's connected to Q2 source.

I'm going to try another slightly different approach.

I'm going to take your diagram from your paper, Fig. 1, and focus ONLY on the connections between the FG and Q2 for the moment. I am going to erase all of the components and connections (wires) except the FG and Q2, and the electrical connections between them. I am not going to draw any new lines in. See the changes below.

1) From the cleaned up diagram, which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Gate lead?

2) From the cleaned up diagram, which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Source lead?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 03:47:32 AM
I'm going to try another slightly different approach.

I'm going to take your diagram from your paper, Fig. 1, and focus ONLY on the connections between the FG and Q2 for the moment. I am going to erase all of the components and connections (wires) except the FG and Q2, and the electrical connections between them. I am not going to draw any new lines in. See the changes below.

1) From the cleaned up diagram, which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Gate lead?

2) From the cleaned up diagram, which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Source lead?

There is only one FG or signal generator.  The probe is signed  '+'  the ground of the signal generator is signed '-'.  This does not vary.  What varies is the applied signal at the probe.

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 03:58:42 AM
There is only one FG or signal generator.  The probe is signed  '+'  the ground of the signal generator is signed '-'.  This does not vary.  What varies is the applied signal at the probe.

R

My focus for the moment is ONLY on the wired connections between the FG and Q2. The actual signal from the FG isn't the issue at this point. Let's establish FIRST which FG lead is connected to which lead of Q2 please.

Now, with reference to the two questions above, please post your two answers.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 04:03:33 AM
I'm going to try another slightly different approach.

I'm going to take your diagram from your paper, Fig. 1, and focus ONLY on the connections between the FG and Q2 for the moment. I am going to erase all of the components and connections (wires) except the FG and Q2, and the electrical connections between them. I am not going to draw any new lines in. See the changes below.

1) From the cleaned up diagram, which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Gate lead?

2) From the cleaned up diagram, which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Source lead?

There is still only one answer.  The probe from the signal generator is ALWAYS CONNECTED AS SHOWN in that '+'
The Ground of the probe from the signal generator is always connected as shown in that '-'.  WE DO NOT CHANGE THE POSITION OF THE PROBE. EVER. 

added - for clarity
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 04:10:20 AM
There is still only one answer.  The probe is ALWAYS CONNECTED AS SHOWN in that '+'
The Ground of the probe is always connected as shown in that '-'.  WE DO NOT CHANGE THE POSITION OF THE PROBE. EVER.

I am not implying that the FG leads are ever moved. What I am asking is this: with reference to the cleaned up diagram as shown:

1) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Gate?

2) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Source?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 04:14:35 AM
I am not implying that the FG leads are ever moved. What I am asking is this: with reference to the cleaned up diagram as shown:

1) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Gate?

2) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Source?

AS YOU'VE SHOWN THEM.  PLUS = signal generator's PROBE.  NEGATIVE = signal generator's probe's GROUND.  What IS the problem?  They're connected as they're shown - as you've shown them - that's how they're connected.  ALWAYS.

R
added for clarity
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 04:25:55 AM
AS YOU'VE SHOWN THEM.  PLUS = signal generator's PROBE.  NEGATIVE = signal generator's probe's GROUND.  What IS the problem?  They're connected as they're shown - as you've shown them - that's how they're connected.  ALWAYS.

R
added for clarity

I am not asking about the association between the FG lead names of "+" and "probe", or "-" and "ground", what I am asking about is the connections between the FG and the Q2 MOSFET... specifically this:

1) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Gate lead?

2) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Source lead?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 04:30:48 AM
I am not asking about the association between the FG lead names of "+" and "probe", or "-" and "ground", what I am asking about is the connections between the FG and the Q2 MOSFET... specifically this:

1) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Gate lead?

2) Which FG lead is connected to the Q2 Source lead?

GOOD HEAVENS.  AGAIN.  The PROBE signed as PLUS in that circuit LEADS TO THE Q2 Gate
THE GROUND signed in that schematic as NEGATIVE leads to the Source. 
EXACTLY AS YOU'VE SHOWN IT. 

I'm also not talking about arbitrary associations.  YOU asked WHICH LEADS?  I've told you.  AS YOU'VE SHOWN THEM.

FOR PERFECT CLARITY - HERE'S THAT DIAGRAM - AGAIN, 
THERE IT IS.  EXACTLY AS YOU'VE DRAWN IT.  EXACTLY AS WE PRESENTED IT IN OUR SCHEMATIC - excepting obviously that this is an extract from the original.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 04:33:57 AM
The PROBE signed as PLUS in that circuit LEADS TO THE Q2 Gate
THE GROUND signed in that schematic as NEGATIVE leads to the Source. 
:o

Are you sure?

Look at the diagram again, and explain how you see this?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 04:41:15 AM
:o

Are you sure?

Look at the diagram again, and explain how you see this?

YES POYNT.  CAN YOU NOW EXPLAIN THE QUESTION?  SURELY THERE'S SOME REASON FOR THIS ALL THIS REPETITIVE EMPHASIS?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 04:46:56 AM
YES POYNT.  CAN YOU NOW EXPLAIN THE QUESTION?

What I see on that partial schematic is a wire going between the '-' and 'g', and a wire going between the '+' and 's'.

Are you saying that this is not what you see?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 04:52:04 AM
What I see on that partial schematic is a wire going between the '-' and 'g', and a wire going between the '+' and 's'.

Are you saying that this is not what you see?

ME TOO.  CAN YOU NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR POINT.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 04:54:50 AM
ME TOO.  CAN YOU NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR POINT.

As per your schematic labeling:

1) What does the "g" stand for?
2) What does the "s" stand for?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 04:59:33 AM
As per your schematic labeling:

1) What does the "g" stand for?
2) What does the "s" stand for?

This is getting absurd.  We do NOT USE 'g' or 's' ON OUR SCHEMATICS.  this is the last time I'm answering this question.  IF you're seeing something 'speak up.'  Else I'm done.

ACTUALLY we do.  Those are the legs of the TRANSISTOR.  Gate Source  Drain.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 05:05:23 AM
This is getting absurd.  We do NOT USE 'g' or 's' ON OUR SCHEMATICS.  this is the last time I'm answering this question.  IF you're seeing something 'speak up.'  Else I'm done.

Please look at your FIG. 1 in your paper. The schematic I used is taken directly from there, and I did not add the "g" nor "s". They are on your schematic labeled as such.

So what do the "g" and "s" stand for? I would think that they stand for "Gate" and "Source" respectively, and that would be correct by convention.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 05:22:54 AM
Please look at your FIG. 1 in your paper. The schematic I used is taken directly from there, and I did not add the "g" nor "s". They are on your schematic labeled as such.

So what do the "g" and "s" stand for? I would think that they stand for "Gate" and "Source" respectively, and that would be correct by convention.

Please get to your point.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 05:26:38 AM
Almost there, possibly the LAST question.

Do you agree that in your diagram, the label "g" means "Gate" and the label "s" means "Source"?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 05:28:23 AM
Almost there, possibly the LAST question.

Do you agree that in your diagram, the label "g" means "Gate" and the label "s" means Source?

YES.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on January 24, 2012, 05:33:25 AM
Please get to your point.

The point is you don't know how to read a simple schematic.  I think this discussion is done.

Gravock
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 05:42:44 AM
YES.
Thank you.


You stated this:
So.  When you state, as you do here ......then I'm not sure that it's right.  The ground of the signal generator (FG-) is NOT connected to Q2-GateIt's connected to Q2 source.

and this:
The PROBE signed as PLUS in that circuit LEADS TO THE Q2 GateTHE GROUND signed in that schematic as NEGATIVE leads to the Source. 


And you've since agreed that the FG- is connected to the Q2 "g" and that "g" stands for "Gate". You've also ow agreed that the FG+ is connected to the Q2 "s" and that "s" stands for "Source. This is in direct contrast to your prior two statements. The prior two were incorrect.

I expect you may wish to revise your above statements and reconsider your understanding of the circuit operation based on this new information.

Knowing how the FG is connected to the MOSFET is critical to understanding its operation, and knowing what polarity from G-S is required to turn the MOSFET ON is also critical.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 07:23:37 AM
Thank you.


You stated this:
and this:

And you've since agreed that the FG- is connected to the Q2 "g" and that "g" stands for "Gate". You've also ow agreed that the FG+ is connected to the Q2 "s" and that "s" stands for "Source. This is in direct contrast to your prior two statements. The prior two were incorrect.

I expect you may wish to revise your above statements and reconsider your understanding of the circuit operation based on this new information.

Knowing how the FG is connected to the MOSFET is critical to understanding its operation, and knowing what polarity from G-S is required to turn t

he MOSFET ON is also critical.


It took a while to get in here.  There's a serious loop back number on Harti's new system.  I could NOT get past the home page.  And I know I'm not the only one who experiences this occasionally. You may want to look into it Harti.  If and when.

In any event.  Poynty Point.  WHAT are you going on about?  The CIRCUIT, AS REPRESENTED IN OUR PAPER, IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  Here's the thing that I THOUGHT you were fixated on.  But it appears to have eluded you.  THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SOURCE OF Q2's LEG AND THE SOURCE OF THE CIRCUIT.  It's NOT CONNECTED TO THE COMMON SOURCE RAIL OF THE CIRCUIT. It floats. That nonsense about Q1 gate and source and the rest?  Good heavens.  And all this time I thought you were preparing some argument based on an oversight.   :o   Frankly I was alarmed.

Let me say this again.  THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THAT CIRCUIT OF OURS.  NOT ANYWHERE.  The Probe is positioned on the GATE of Q1 which is a rail shared with the SOURCE OF Q2.  It's simple.  What's missing is the connection between the SOURCE LEG of Q2 with the common source of the circuit.  And that's precisely the cause of that anomalous waveform.  What you need to prove is that the battery is CONNECTED during the period that the circuit is OPEN or when a Negative signal is applied to the Gate of Q1.

It is indeed CRITICAL to know how the MOSFETs are connected.  It seems to have eluded you.  So.  I'm not sure that I need that advice from you.  But all those questions?  It actually suggests that - until you extrapolated that small circuit section - that this fact had ELUDED you.  You see now why I REPEATEDLY advised that when and IF it was a positive signal applied at Q2 - then it was NOT applied to its Gate.  It was ONLY to its source.  And that source floats. 

But I'm glad you emphasised this.  It's clearly missed you - and possibly others.  It may help clarify things.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 07:26:37 AM
The point is you don't know how to read a simple schematic.  I think this discussion is done.

Gravock

I'm well aware of the need for our 'pack hunters' to bay at the 'kill'.  But it would be possibly be advisable to wait for CERTAINTY of that death - Gravock.   :o Just a thought.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And may I add.  My own ability to read that circuit is NOT at question.  On the contrary.  I think that Poynty's reading it for the first time  And you may want to follow suit.  It would be way more apposite.

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on January 24, 2012, 08:10:11 AM
I'm well aware of the need for our 'pack hunters' to bay at the 'kill'.  But it would be possibly be advisable to wait for CERTAINTY of that death - Gravock.   :o Just a thought.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And may I add.  My own ability to read that circuit is NOT at question.  On the contrary.  I think that Poynty's reading it for the first time  And you may want to follow suit.  It would be way more apposite.

R

There was no 'kill'.  It was more like death by suicide. 

Gravock
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 08:16:14 AM
There was no 'kill'.  It was more like death by suicide. 

Gravock

I see that now.  It was the premature baying of hyenas based on an assumption of death? 

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 08:50:07 AM
Anyway guys, here's the thing.

The fact is that when the signal generator applies a negative signal at the switch at Q1 - then at that same moment it is applying a positive signal to the source of Q2.  There is no CONVENTIONAL explanation that would then allow a current to pass from the battery - back to the source - unless there were something connecting it.  There's nothing to enable this.  NIX - NADA NOTHING.  Just can't happen.  Which is why we are able to argue that the battery is INDEED disconnected from the circuit.  And then.  IF it was disconnected the oscilloscope probes would not pick up it's battery voltage.  The only voltage it could then read is the voltage across the circuit components connected via those transistor body diodes.  Which I've argued previously.  And which, thank HEAVENS Poynty has managed to draw your attention to.  I never know what needs emphasising.  But I must admit.  I thought that this much was clear.   

But we're only touching on the 'fringe' of the implications of all this.  I'm hoping that the discussion will progress to what that current may, indeed, be doing.  In any event.  I'm continually intrigued with the urgent need to deny our claims.  This is dedicated attempt.  And probably as well.  The thing is this.  It's no good reminding the world and his wife that I'm not schooled in electronics - when this is already known.  Nor is it that I'm after fame, fortune, or even Poynty's ou prize.  In fact, when our definitions are FINALLY ironed out - there is absolutely NO WAY that we claim over unity at all. We'll probably have to recuse ourselves.  The object of that paper and those tests is SIMPLY to address the question and anomalies that the circuit exposes.  And - all I have EVER tried to do is to share some rather extraordinary insights.  That there's an efficient use of energy at the end of the line is a good thing.  But whatever we're dealing with - will MOST CERTAINLY be outpaced by new and emerging technologies.  I keep saying this.  We've got nothing extraordinary.  But what we do have are some interesting insights related to 'field' physics - that may be worth exploring.  That's why I spend all this time at the key board.  Because that is really interesting.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: energy1234hope on January 24, 2012, 09:04:58 AM
Hi Rosie Glad to see your battling the powers that be again good luck with that. On another note the professor jones has made a comment for you under his post 8times more out. all the best ron
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 09:08:12 AM
Hi Rosie Glad to see your battling the powers that be again good luck with that. On another note the professor jones has made a comment for you under his post 8times more out. all the best ron

Hope - as ever.  Nice to see you dipping in here - and there.  I'll check it out.  But right now I need to get some sleep.  It's been another allnighter.
Always a pleasure, and take care

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 02:32:08 PM
Hi guys,

Have now heard from Prof Steve E Jones, aka  JouleSeeker.  Here it is.
Rose,
The answer is here --

http://www.overunity.com/11661/new-renaissance-prizes-offered-to-encourage-energy-experimenters/msg304423/#msg304423 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../11661/new-renaissance-prizes-offered-to-encourage-energy-experimenters/msg304423/#msg304423)

I copy the basics here for your convenience:

So I need to ask you, are you willing to:
1. submit your entry for me to look at... I will also pay shipping both ways.

and very important for these prizes are to benefit mankind and hopefully quickly --

2.  Do you agree to make the device available to mankind worldwide quickly?

By this I mean "open source" of the details of the device and NOT seeking a patent -- hopefully with a fair return to the inventor(s) as explained previously.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 02:33:07 PM
Rosemary,

Are you saying that you do not see the clear contradiction between your previous statements about how the FG is connected to the Q2 MOSFET, when compared to all the statements you agreed to on that long journey we just finished?

Is it true you are still insisting that the FG- is connected to the Q2 Source?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 02:39:16 PM
Dear Professor,

Delighted to hear from you.  And very pleased that you'll consider our claim.  Now.  The point is this.  We've already detailed the scope of the tests in our paper that was forwarded to you.  In it we have outlined the measurements applied to those tests.  For a fair adjudication - I think we need to establish whether those measurement protocols are sufficient?  Or not?  And whether the experiments  would, in fact, prove the claim that is detailed in our second paper.  Effectively we are claiming that we are dissipating significant energy at a load - measured in its temperature rise over the resistor element - and at no measurable delivery of ANY of energy from the battery supply source.

Can we please establish this first?  From there we can move to a discussion as to how to fully disclose this information for your evaluation.  That's always doable.  Somehow.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.  Changed 'deliver' to 'delivery'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 02:47:36 PM
Rosemary,

Are you saying that you do not see the clear contradiction between your previous statements about how the FG is connected to the Q2 MOSFET, when compared to all the statements you agreed to on that long journey we just finished?

Is it true you are still insisting that the FG- is connected to the Q2 Source?

OH DEAR GOD.  Poynty this is getting beyond boring.  Let me ask you something.  DO YOU ASSUME THAT THE SOURCE LEG OF Q2 is CONNECTED TO COMMON SOURCE OF THE CIRCUIT?  ALTERNATIVELY - DID YOU REALISE  THAT THE SOURCE LEG OF Q2 is not connected to the common source?  IT relates to that 'COMMONALITY' that you mentioned earlier?  I'm too bored to find your post on this.  NOW.  That's also an easy question.  And it is considerably less ambiguous than your own.   And unlike your's -it's also PERTINENT.  I ASSURE YOU.  There are ABSOLUTELY NO MISREPRESENTATIONS in that CIRCUIT OF OURS.  I've circulated it to all the collaborators.  And WE STAND FIRM.  That source leg of Q2 FLOATS.  My concern was ONLY that there was some hidden connection that I'd overlooked.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 02:58:23 PM
Rosemary,

Is it true you are still insisting that the FG- is connected to the Q2 Source?

NO.  I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THIS.  HERE'S WHAT WE CLAIM.  The probe of the signal generator is ATTACHED TO (added) the GATE OF Q1 as well as to the SOURCE of Q2.  THAT PROBE CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS FG-.  IT SIMPLY IS NOT.  STANDARD REFERENCE TO A PROBE IS 'POSITIVE' OR '+'.   

Here's that extract from the schematic that you ordered. I've also now downloaded that full schematic.  NOW.  LOOK CLOSELY POYNTY.  WHERE IS THE SOURCE LEG OF Q2 CONNECTED TO THE COMMON SOURCE OF THE CIRCUIT?  You argued this.  I denied it.  What ARE you trying to tell us?   Or are you just relying on spreading more confusions?  In the hopes that thereby you can IMPLY AND ALLEGE that our circuit representations are WRONG?  What?  Let us know.  Speak your mind.  This is excessively repetitive.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
Dear heavens, Guys

This is how Poynty et al manage to steer the conversation away from what's needed.  The technique is this.  Harass the claimant with questions - pertinent or otherwise.  By the way you frame those questions you will be able to imply an INTRINSIC FLAW in their logic.  That way there is NO NEED to explain anything at all.  You simply manage to spread confusion and all the while it seems that you have some insight that you are under no obligation to SHARE. 

It's a TECHNIQUE.  Surely, by NOW - you realise that we're all onto it?  It's really WORKABLE Poynty Point - provided ONLY that the public are not aware of it.  WE ARE.  All of us.  The schematic speaks for itself.  It CONFORMS to our CIRCUIT.  NOW.  AGAIN.  WHERE is the SOURCE LEG OF q2 CONNECTED TO THE common source rail of the circuit?  LET US KNOW.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2012, 03:25:20 PM
It would be much more feasible to utilize the nomenclature and reference designators as shown on your diagram when discussing your circuit. Agreed?

For example, please only use the word "Source" when referring to that terminal of the MOSFET. There is no "common source".

FG- is certainly a valid reference, as it is also shown on your diagram this way. "FG" means "Function Generator", agreed?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
It would be much more feasible to utilize the nomenclature and reference designators as shown on your diagram when discussing your circuit. Agreed?

For example, please only use the word "Source" when referring to that terminal of the MOSFET. There is no "common source".

FG- is certainly a valid reference, as it is also shown on your diagram this way. "FG" means "Function Generator", agreed?

i use the word 'source' as it's applicable.  Source is designated as one of the legs of those MOSFETs.  it is ALSO standard reference to that part of the circuit that is connected to the negative terminal of the battery supply - behind the switch.  As opposed to the Drain rail that described that part of the circuit that is connected to the positive terminal of the battery supply - in front of the switch.

I grant you one thing though.  However else I've used it - it patently was not clear to you.  But HOPEFULLY.  It now is.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 05:27:41 PM
And Poynty,

Let me put you out of your misery regarding that OU claim.  I FREELY CONFESS that my only intention at claiming it at all was to force you to argue the paper and our evidence.  I was more than a little tired of the running commentary on both your forum and that hate blog that you subscribe to - where - regardless of those atrocious insults against me and my good name - is the clear REFUSAL to acknowledge the anomalies that are clearly and unarguably evident in BOTH OUR TESTS.  Had there been any acknowledgement of the fact that there were questions still to be answered - then this may have encouraged you to LOOK DEEPER.  But your overriding anxiety was to REJECT THE CLAIM OUTRIGHT. WHY?  IF there is some kind of evidence - however marginal - then one would expect a thorough investigation.  Instead of which?  All that abuse?  What gives?  It's very probable that I'm as intellectually challenged as you allege.  But I have a more than adequate working knowledge of the basics of physics.  Courtesy some really excellent literature on a conceptual understanding of this.  And especially as it relates to the electromagnetic interaction.  So?  Why the need to paint me more stupid than I actually am?  Is that part of your agenda?  And tell us.  What is that agenda?  Why is it necessary to not only reject a claim - but to then resort to such liberal abuse of that claimant.  Why do you need to parade a knowledge that you actually don't appear to have - in order to diminish my own credibility?  WHY THE ATTACK?  It's not more nor less than the scorn you apply to everyone who dares challenge our physical paradigms.  Personally I'm now prepared to fight it at every level that I can.  And I assure you it's been a struggle.  TIMES HAVE CHANGED.  WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

My ONLY interest is in progressing field theory.  But to get there I was ASSURED by some weighty academic physicists - that I would first have to offer some kind of anomalous result to PROVE some kind of merit in that model.  I've been touting that proof around for 13 years now and I ASSURE YOU - there is absolutely not 1 ACADEMIC EXPERT who has come to the table to evaluate that evidence.  The good news is that the application of my technology is NO LONGER CRITICAL.  I am entirely satisfied that Andrea Rossi has taken the pressure off the immediate need for those applications.  His solutions are BRILLIANT.  Our own nowhere NEAR developed enough.  BUT.  I still have that model and I still need to share it.  And it helps not me nor anyone at all - that you try to bulldoze a DENIAL without due consideration.  The more so as - for once on these forums - there's an entirely adequate paper detailing all the results as REQUIRED.  That's been sorely lacking.

You've got a lot to explain Poynty.

Regards,
Rosemary
 :-[
another edit.  It never stops.  'of' to 'off'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 07:13:33 PM
Poynty - it seems that I owe you an apology. 

I've just read through the most of my posts and it appears that I use the word source and source rail interchangeably.  I've variously spoken a whole lot of nonsense with respect to the ss dd gg number - which, for the life of me I can't understand what I meant.  I must concede that there is not ALWAYS sufficient clarity in my writing. No doubt there's plenty room for improvement.

One of our collaborators has assured me that one can refer to the supply source and then the term RAIL ALWAYS needs to be qualified against the terms source and drain.  Else one must specify MOSFET SOURCE QG - as you do.  More often than not I've referred to source rail - when I meant the source leg of the 'FET.  So.  I own up.  My terminology has not been as precise as required.  Abject apologies.

Regards,
Rosemary

lol  Had to edit those references AGAIN.  :o

and I see that you've all done some serious editing on that hate blog.   ;D   Nice to see the more aggressive posts deleted.  A little more editing and you'd have it very well cleaned.  Was there a complaint?   8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 01:28:39 AM
No need to apologize Rosemary.

My only hope is that if you wish to have a productive discussion about your circuit, we can "talk the same language" and agree in terms of how the circuit is connected, what the various points in the circuit are "named", and what the polarity is across the FG.

Until we do, it would be extremely difficult for me to answer any of YOUR questions, because I would not understand exactly what you are asking.

So, can we agree to properly use the nomenclature as denoted on YOUR schematic?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 02:22:08 AM
No need to apologize Rosemary.

My only hope is that if you wish to have a productive discussion about your circuit, we can "talk the same language" and agree in terms of how the circuit is connected, what the various points in the circuit are "named", and what the polarity is across the FG.

Until we do, it would be extremely difficult for me to answer any of YOUR questions, because I would not understand exactly what you are asking.

So, can we agree to properly use the nomenclature as denoted on YOUR schematic?

Good.  Thanks for that.  Now.  We've agreed that the terms related to source and drain are this.  If I refer to Source Rail or Drain Rail then I am referring to the circuit connection to the negative and positive respectively.  By the same token if I refer to the source or drain on one of either legs of the transistors - then it is referred to as Q(1 or 2)source or drain.

I may need to go back to one of my posts.  I'll edit it in the light of these terms.  And then I'll repost. 

BRB
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 02:36:33 AM
If I refer to Source Rail or Drain Rail then I am referring to the circuit connection to the negative and positive respectively.

I can work with "Drain Rail" if I have to (I would prefer Q1-D or Q2-D), but it would be impossible to work with "Source Rail" because the two MOSFET Sources are not connected together. Again, the preference in order to avoid confusion, would be to refer to the MOSFET leg directly, such as Q1-S, which means the Source pin of Q1.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 02:36:35 AM
Poynty - this is just a repeat of my previous post. I've highlighted those places that needed qualification - but otherwise it's exactly the same post.  Would you care to comment here?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here's that argument
Actually guys - this may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection.  The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain rail.  Which is standard convention.  Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage falls.  And it SERIOUSLY falls.  It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5.  Given a  supply source of 6 batteries for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts.  At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage.  And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at the gate of Q1, is negative.  WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING.  In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT.  Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating.  We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle.  But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.

Now.  If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second.  And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery.  For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second -  during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS.  IN A MOMENT?  That's hardly likely.  And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours?  As are ours?  And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time.  DO THE MATH.  It beggars belief.  In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.

NOW.  You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage.  Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS.  Well.  It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this.  And in a way he's right.  There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO?  What gives?  Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse.  His own simulation software measures it.  Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH. 

But science is science.  And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere.  So.  How to explain it?  How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V?  Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope -  that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply.  Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain rail - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery  - and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN RAIL - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail of +0.5V.  Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material.  WHICH IS REASONABLE.  Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.

OR DOES IT?  If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load.  Over time.  In fact over the duration.  It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating.  It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER.  Not even under fully discharged conditions.  So?  Again.  WHAT GIVES?  Clearly something else is coming into the equation.  Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all.  And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY.  Well within their capabilities. 

SO.  BACK TO THE QUESTION?  WHAT GIVES?  We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail.  And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground.   Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING?  UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit?  Unless the switch is CLOSED.  IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE by the signal generator then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED?  In which case?  Would it, that oscilloscope, not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit?  IF so.  Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit.  It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED.  It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit?  In which case?  We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP.  What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components.  Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source. 

It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you.  Sorry this took so long.  It needs all those words to explain this.  The worst of it is that there's more to come.   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 02:44:05 AM
I can work with "Drain Rail" if I have to (I would prefer Q1-D or Q2-D), but it would be impossible to work with "Source Rail" because the two MOSFET Sources are not connected together. Again, the preference in order to avoid confusion, would be to refer to the MOSFET leg directly, such as Q1-S, which means the Source pin of Q1.

NO POYNTY.  That's not the meaning of the term RAIL.  I was given to understand that any reference to RAIL refers to the wire that is connected directly to the supply source being the positive, DRAIN RAIL or the negative SOURCE RAIL of the supply's terminals.  In every context the word source must be referenced either as it relates to the transistor legs - in which case it is Q(1 or 2)S or as Source rail or Drain rail.  That way there are no ambiguities and it allows full circuit reference as required.

Surely?  In any event that's how I've referenced it in the above post.  Take a look in there and see if you can or can't understand it.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 02:51:20 AM
OK, I see now the Drain rail is actually the battery + (B+). "Drain Rail" is confusing when actually referring to the battery + (B+), but I can work with it if necessary.

"Source Rail" is actually the FG-, agreed? At any rate, I can work with that if it makes it easier for you.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 02:54:56 AM
OK, I see now the Drain rail is actually the battery +. "Drain Rail" is confusing when actually referring to the battery +, but I can work with it if necessary.

"Source Rail" is actually the FG-, agreed? At any rate, I can work with that if it makes it easier for you.

Ok.  That's good.  Because I know of no standard reference to that part of the circuit that is NOT at the drain.  And rail sort of qualifies it.  As opposed to the transistors' legs - in which case we simply refer to source or drain or S and D. 

Thanks,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 03:02:00 AM
Ok.  That's good.  Because I know of no standard reference to that part of the circuit that is NOT at the drain.  And rail sort of qualifies it.  As opposed to the transistors' legs - in which case we simply refer to source or drain or S and D. 

Thanks,
Rosie
Using "Drain Rail" is confusing because there is no direct connection to the battery from the Drains; the load resistor is in series. Since what you are referring to is actually the battery+ (B+) when you say "Drain Rail", then that is normally what it is called, "B+".

Regarding your request for comments, could I trouble you to condense your inquiries into a number of clear, concise, specific questions?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 03:16:19 AM
We're 'teetering' here Poynty Point.  Can I ask you to grab onto this 'truce' with both hands and just hang in there?  Pro temp?  Let's see where this goes. ;D

Using "Drain Rail" is confusing because there is no direct connection to the battery from the Drains; the load resistor is in series. Since what you are referring to is actually the battery+ (B+) when you say "Drain Rail", then that is normally what it is called, "B+".
You'll notice a general reluctance that I have in referring to any acronyms at all.  That's because it always takes an argument to some distance, some remove from perfect clarity.  But that's just me.  I've not had science training.  But there are also those readers here who also are not entirely schooled in scientific jargon.  So.  On the whole - I can live with your need for those terms.  But, I'll continue to describe the 'thing'.  It's only important that If you refer to B+ or B- that you allow me my preferred terms.  But you're right again.  Because it is perfectly logical to refer to the battery postive terminal and the battery negative terminal.  That's fine.  I'll pass on amending the references in that post - if you don't mind.

Regarding your request for comments, could I trouble you to condense your inquiries into a number of clear precise questions?
I'm not sure that there are any questions there?  I'm actually asking you to fault the comments.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 03:33:56 AM
And while I'm at it.  Could I impose on you, Professor - to either come into this discussion - or to comment on the measurement protocols that have been applied in our paper?

For some reason you seem reluctant to engage here?  And, if you are prepared to evaluate our claim it would, perhaps, be as well to get familiar with the extent of the arguments.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 25, 2012, 03:49:48 AM
Rosemary:

I hate to interrupt, but I noticed your reply #273 directing people to your blog.  I read something on your blog that I could hardly believe.  From November 17, 2010:

"...This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started...."

Do you believe that standard theory says a light bulb should take up to half an hour to turn on?  I have managed to live my whole life (up to now) without hearing that one.
Seriously, a half hour?

Bubba1
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 03:56:42 AM
Rosemary:

I hate to interrupt, but I noticed your reply #273 directing people to your blog.  I read something on your blog that I could hardly believe.  From November 17, 2010:

"...This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour  for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started...."

Do you believe that standard theory says a light bulb should take up to half an hour to turn on?  I have managed to live my whole life (up to now) without hearing that one.
Seriously, a half hour?

Bubba1

Yes Bubba.  The rate at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron takes a certain KNOWN quotient of time.  Therefore, IF current flow comprises the flow of VALENCE ELECTRONS - given some required length of wiring between the plug and the appliance - then it would take about twenty minutes before the light would light - or the kettle start to cook.  That's not my math Bubba.  That's standard physics.  I mention it because - I like you - find that when I switch on an electric appliance that current flow is also that dynamic that it's instantaneous.  Which means that it is possibly not entirely valid to claim that current flow is the transfer of energy via valence electrons - is my point.

Regards,
Rosemary

edited
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 25, 2012, 04:07:32 AM
It is not standard physics.  There must be some misunderstanding.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 04:16:34 AM
It is not standard physics.  There must be some misunderstanding.

Bubba - if you've read that much then read on.  There are many 'optional' proposals to account for the flow of current to be the flow of electrons.  But the one contradicts the other.  If you take the trouble to speak to a physicist as opposed to an engineer - then you'll find that the purists ONLY refer to current flow as the flow of charge.  The imposition of the 'electron' according to Dyson in his 'conceptual physics' was simply to model the concept for purposes of 'understanding' the transfer of energy.  But the concept has been used for so long now that everyone refers to the flow of current as the flow of electrons - assuming that it carries the FULL weight of scientific endorsement.  It does not.  There are huge gaps in our knowledge.  It's presumed that all is known.  Far from it.  And I assure you - that example is only one of MANY concepts that are intrinsically contradictory.  I've listed some of them.   

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 04:18:06 AM
The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain rail.  Which is standard convention.  Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage falls.  And it SERIOUSLY falls.  It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5.  Given a  supply source of 6 batteries for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts.  At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage.  And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at the gate of Q1, is negative.  WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING.  In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT.  Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating.  We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle.  But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.

The absolute worst case load that can be applied to the batteries is determined by the DC resistance of the load. This is because any AC present simply increases the over-all impedance. Therefore, with a load of 11 Ohms DC (this is the worst case), and a battery voltage (B+) of roughly 72VDC, the worst case (highest) current that can be drawn from the batteries is simply:

72VDC/11 Ohms = 6.5 Amperes.

With for example a 100 Amp-hour (A-h) battery, there would be roughly 15 hours of use available before the batteries were considered fully discharged. Out of interest, the power delivered by the batteries would amount to about 471 Watts.

So, if you were to take your load resistor and connect it directly to your battery array, this is approximately how long the batteries would last before they were considered "dead".

Your actual circuit however is one harboring a considerable amount of parasitic inductance throughout, especially in the long connecting wires to the battery array. As such, when the MOSFET bursts into its 1.5MHz oscillation, the circuit impedances become active and limit the net average current and power delivered to the load.

Taking this inductance and oscillation into consideration, it is not good practice to acquire battery voltage measurements at the "Drain Rail", because at this point there is an excessive inductive reactance between this point and the actual B+ terminal. As such, what will be observed is a large voltage swing, far in excess of the B+ voltage. Power measurements computed with this voltage measurement can only produce a "reactive" power result (Google "reactive power"). The unit for reactive power is "VAR", Volt-Amps-reactive.

I see this clearly in the simulations.

To obtain a "real" Battery power computation, the B+ must be measured directly between the battery posts, i.e. between B+ and B-. (Google "real power").
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 25, 2012, 04:28:41 AM
Hey guys, I seriously enjoy reading your discussions!!! My question would be why you don't have VOMs connected directly to the batteries while running your tests? Sorry to interrupt but it seems like if you're measuring batteries you would want some sort of meter bettween the + and - (B+ and B-?), or at the ends of the battery bank or whatever, especially if they are discharching so quickly. Would be fun to watch an analog VOM drop that fast eh? I'm a noob here so please forgive my intrusiveness...

PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 04:34:10 AM
I'll get back to you later Poynty.  I'm finally beginning to feel tired.  What a pleasure.  Maybe I'll get some sleep.

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 04:35:20 AM
PC,

Placing a DC meter or VOM directly across the battery terminals will not produce too much excitement I'm afraid. Why? Because the battery voltage (measured directly) doesn't actually dip that much. And for what little it does vary, the meter will average those small variations out and retain a fairly steady voltage reading.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 25, 2012, 05:55:06 AM
PC,

Placing a DC meter or VOM directly across the battery terminals will not produce too much excitement I'm afraid. Why? Because the battery voltage (measured directly) doesn't actually dip that much. And for what little it does vary, the meter will average those small variations out and retain a fairly steady voltage reading.

A VOM wouldn't drop to 0.5v or is the 'recharge rate' really high or something?. I'm confused, I thought that was what the excitement was about!
PC
edit:changed frequency for recharge rate
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 06:54:12 AM
A VOM wouldn't drop to 0.5v or is the 'recharge rate' really high or something?. I'm confused, I thought that was what the excitement was about!
PC
edit:changed frequency for recharge rate

Hi PhiChaser -
Nice to see your post.  Actually I think it's a really good proposal.  We actually tried this but the problem is that they only operate at slower frequencies.  I can't remember what was stipulated.  What it probably DOES manage is to oscillate from current from grid supplies.  So it's frequency tolerance is possibly 50 Hertz or thereby.  (Sorry.  I wrote 220H - probably thinking of the supply voltage.  I'm getting seriously old) But at the range of frequencies that we apply it just sits tight - full center - with nowhere to go.  Just can't respond quick enough.  But I agree.  They're a neat means of actually seeing that current reversal number - as a rule.  Otherwise our only proof is our scope displays.

And you're right of course.  We're trying to explain that rather drunk swing of the voltage from an oscillation that during one half of the cycle falls to 0.5v's per battery and on the other half - climbs to a little under 24 volts.  In fact.  The upswing can be more than double.  And we've got record of the down swing that falls below zero.  So the peaks at each half of each oscillation go  WAY past the battery's capacity and rating.  And to argue that amount of discharge - recharge - we'd need to find CONSIDERABLY more power than is reasonable - and from somewhere that's NOT from that battery supply.

Anyway.  Welcome to the discussion. And feel free to ask questions.  We all need to.  It's the healthiest possible way to learn anything at all.  God knows.  I've got a fair share of my own.
 ::)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited for emphasis
SORRY.  I deleted the first as I took the wrong download.  This one may be clearer.  There's a 48 volt supply.  And the PINK trace is the battery voltage.  Channel 2.  Note that the battery voltage is nearly 3 x's the supply.  The mean battery average should be there in the display.  Sorry I forgot to check.  Anyway.  About 48 volts or thereby
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 09:13:56 AM
OK Poynty - I think I've understood what you're saying here.

The absolute worst case load that can be applied to the batteries is determined by the DC resistance of the load. This is because any AC present simply increases the over-all impedance. Therefore, with a load of 11 Ohms DC (this is the worst case), and a battery voltage (B+) of roughly 72VDC, the worst case (highest) current that can be drawn from the batteries is simply:

72VDC/11 Ohms = 6.5 Amperes.
Indeed.  No problem with this.  Except I'll reserve comment related to 'This is because any AC present simply increases the over-all impedance.'  I take it that this increase to the impedance is related to the applied frequency.  I'm not sure that there's much difference in the computed AC amperage flow from energy applied from our grids to the energy applied from a battery with the load simply placed in series with that supply.  Much of a muchness.  It's at those higher frequencies that there's a reduced current flow due to higher impedance.  Which would, unquestionably increase the amount of relative resistance and REDUCE the rate of current flow - correspondingly. 

With for example a 100 Amp-hour (A-h) battery, there would be roughly 15 hours of use available before the batteries were considered fully discharged. Out of interest, the power delivered by the batteries would amount to about 471 Watts.

So, if you were to take your load resistor and connect it directly to your battery array, this is approximately how long the batteries would last before they were considered "dead".
So.  This is still in line with that standard model. 

Your actual circuit however is one harboring a considerable amount of parasitic inductance throughout, especially in the long connecting wires to the battery array. As such, when the MOSFET bursts into its 1.5MHz oscillation, the circuit impedances become active and limit the net average current and power delivered to the load.
Absolutely.

Taking this inductance and oscillation into consideration, it is not good practice to acquire battery voltage measurements at the "Drain Rail", because at this point there is an excessive inductive reactance between this point and the actual B+ terminal. As such, what will be observed is a large voltage swing, far in excess of the B+ voltage. Power measurements computed with this voltage measurement can only produce a "reactive" power result (Google "reactive power"). The unit for reactive power is "VAR", Volt-Amps-reactive.
Not actually.  That rather MONSTROUS voltage swing is never apparent on a standard switching circuit.  All that one sees there is the very high spiking that is managed at each switch.  The Spike itself - may exceed the battery supply voltage - but the battery voltage stays on track - more or less.

To obtain a "real" Battery power computation, the B+ must be measured directly between the battery posts, i.e. between B+ and B-. (Google "real power").
I keep telling you this.  We have done this ENTIRE TEST with a FULL OSCILLATION with the scope probe directly ON the positive battery terminal and the probe ground directly ON the negative terminal.  You asked us to do this.  NO INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER from those leads.  THAT SWING IS ALWAYS EVIDENT.

I am reasonably satisfied that there is absolutely no way that the measured voltage over any of the circuit components is ever WRONG.  If the scope shows 12 volts then indeed it's measuring 12 volts.  If the scope shows 0.5 volts then it's measuring 0.5 volts.  24 volts and it's measuring 24 - and so on.  That voltage measurement is SPOT ON.  ALWAYS.  That's our guarantee from the oscilloscope manufacturers.  And those rather zut instruments that we are privileged to access, can read those voltages in real time EASILY.  It is well able to adjust to the applied frequency.  What MAY vary is the current to be determined by that voltage reading.  That can vary if there's a phase shift - which is NOT applicable in our own waveforms.  Or it can vary in line with the impedance.  But that simply needs to be factored in.  It most certainly does NOT make that voltage reading across the battery incorrect.  Indeed, the scopes that we use are PRECISELY ACCURATE to within the smallest and most irrelevant margin of error.  So.  IF it is giving a measurement - you can take that measurement to the bank.  It is PRECISELY CORRECT.  Which also means that IF it is measuring 0.5 volts then THAT'S WHAT IT IS FOLKS.  The LeCroy and the Tektronix manufacturers have staked their reputations on it.  They give us all kinds of guarantees to this effect.

It may be advisable to check that there's no phase shifts.  And it would be advisable in the computation of the AMPERAGE DELIVERED - that one also factors in the impedance.  But that has NOTHING to do with the voltage reading across the battery.  It's SPOT ON. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Changed I to It
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 09:29:19 AM
Poynty.  Unless you can contradict what I've written can we put this argument to bed?  That argument that the battery voltage is wrong?  Otherwise it's going to dog this discussion into infinity.  Your point is correct BUT it is ONLY correct AS IT APPLIES to the computation of current flow.  Which has NOTHING to do with the battery voltage itself.  The voltage reading done by those oscilloscopes is measuring ONLY the amount of potential difference available across whatever those probes are measuring.  Whatever potential difference it's measuring is also what's there.  It's a  MEASUREMENT THAT IS GUARANTEED.

GRANTED - that IF we measure the rate of current flow resulting from that applied potential difference - then we must also acknowledge that regardless of the voltage reading itself - we needs must factor in a higher resistance WHEN AND IF the oscillation is going lickerty split.  BECAUSE that faster oscillation will certainly reduce the rate at which the potential difference across the battery is delivered as current.  But it makes not ONE IOTA of difference to the battery voltage. 

You've been mentioning this argument off and on - since this thread's inception.  It is basically simply NOT correct.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.  I think I limited the accuracies of the scopes to the voltages across the batteries. It applies to whatever potential difference it is able to read relative to its probe and ground.  Hopefully it's now clearer.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 02:08:08 PM
A VOM wouldn't drop to 0.5v or is the 'recharge rate' really high or something?. I'm confused, I thought that was what the excitement was about!
PC

It's virtually impossible to pull down a single somewhat charged 12V battery to 0.5V, much less 6 batteries in series!

The voltage measurement is not taken on the battery posts, which is the reason the scope shows a large voltage swing, and this is due to the impedance of the wire between the load and the batteries.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 02:22:15 PM
Rosemary,

The battery voltage measurement is essentially the "meat of the matter" for my argument against the validity of your power measurements. If you will not argue this, then it would seem we have very little left to discuss.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 02:32:35 PM
Rosemary,

The battery voltage measurement is essentially the "meat of the matter" for my argument against the validity of your power measurements. If you will not argue this, then it would seem we have very little left to discuss.

I NEVER SAID THAT I WON'T ARGUE IT.  I said that you really need to stop saying that the scopes are picking up the wrong voltage.  OF COURSE I need to argue why that voltage swings.  I have argued it.  I'll try it again.  But right now - what I AM saying is that the scope meter is not wrong.  Those measurements are NOT ERRONEOUS.  IF THEY WERE I'd have cause to quarrel with LeCroy - and that would be RIDICULOUS.

I'll try that argument again.  Meanwhile could I impose on you to JUST READ what I've already tried by way of an explanation?  If it's not understandable then tell me where?  That might help.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 02:50:51 PM
Here's another shot at it.

Put your scope probes at the positive terminal of your battery.  IT CANNOT READ THE VOLTAGE - that potential difference - UNLESS its ground is connected to the NEGATIVE TERMINAL. 

When we apply a positive signal at the gate - of Q1 - in order to CLOSE THE CIRCUIT - then it is able to read the battery voltage.  NO PROBLEM.  If we entirely disconnected the battery from the circuit it would read the battery voltage.  NO PROBLEM. 

THEN.  We apply a negative signal at the gate of Q1.  At the same time we're applying a POSITIVE SIGNAL to the SOURCE LEG OF Q2.  NOT TO THE NEGATIVE BATTERY TERMINAL.  ONLY DIRECTLY TO THE TRANSISTOR Q2.  This positive signal is NOT ON THE CIRCUIT.  It is specifically and ONLY applied to that TRANSISTOR.  To it's source leg.  Q2S.

Do you agree this far?

Kindest as ever,
R
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 02:57:58 PM
Here's that circuit again.  Look closely.  The Source of Q2 IS NOT CONNECTED to the NEGATIVE BATTERY VOLTAGE  or, a I call it,  to the SOURCE RAIL of the battery.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 03:08:37 PM
Rosemary,

First of all, slow down, calm down and READ WHAT I SAID. I DID NOT say the scope was measuring incorrectly, I have said this a dozen times, every time in fact that you MISINTERPRET what I say in this regard.

I said that the scope probes are placed at the wrong locations to make the measurement, and THAT is the reason the measurements are not valid.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 03:15:13 PM
Rosemary,

First of all, slow down, calm down and READ WHAT I SAID. I DID NOT say the scope was measuring incorrectly, I have said this a dozen times, every time in fact that you MISINTERPRET what I say in this regard.

I said that the scope probes are placed at the wrong locations to make the measurement, and THAT is the reason the measurements are not valid.

POYNTY - Trust me I'm calm.  You have advised us that a CORRECT measurement is only possible if the probes of the oscilloscope are placed directly across the battery terminals.  WE HAVE DONE THIS.  REPEATEDLY.  NO CONNECTING WIRES OTHER THAN THE CIRCUIT WIRES.  We've applied ENTIRELY different circuits switched by 555's - and still used our batteries - with LESS THAN 16 inches of wire in those ENTIRE CIRCUITS including the connection to the battery.  WE ALWAYS GET THAT VOLTAGE SWING.  I keep telling you this.  Somehow you keep ignoring it.  Not only did we do this test - but we did it publicly - HERE ON THE FORUM.  I downloaded the data.  I cannot get those scope probes more directly onto the battery - a SINGLE BATTERY - short of soldering them directly to the terminal.  THEY ARE NOT THE RESULT OF OUR PROBES BEING IN THE WRONG POSITION

You need to look deeper Poynty.  I'm trying to show you where to look.

Kindest as ever,
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 03:19:45 PM
NOW.  LOOK AT THAT CIRCUIT DIAGRAM.  The difference between Q1 and Q2 is this.  Q1 has it's source (Q1S) - soldered to the common battery source rail - or as you like to call it - to the negative terminal of the battery.  Q2 conversely - HAS NO CONNECTION TO THAT common battery source rail - or, as you put, to the negative terminal of the battery.

Again.  I thought - through those endless questions that you had FOUND a connection.  In truth you hadn't seen its lack.  This is what I'm trying to point you to.  Check it out.

Kindest as ever
R
changed 'he' to 'you'. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 03:32:22 PM
SO.  Here's the thing.  IF I apply a positive signal at the Gate of Q1 then the current can flow from the Q1 Drain through the Q1 Gate to the Q1 source.  AND BACK TO THE NEGATIVE TERMINAL OF THE BATTERY.  Well and good.

Now I apply the positive signal to Q2.  It can conduct from the Q2 Drain through the Q2 Gate -  AND THEN?  To the Q2 source - TO WHERE?  THE SIGNAL GENERATOR?  Because that's it's ONLY connection.  It can't go BACK TO THE NEGATIVE TERMINAL OF THE BATTERY.

Do you see this yet?  The CIRCUIT IS OPEN.  It is not connected by Q2 - notwithstanding the positive signal at the gate of Q2.  It can go nowhere.  The source leg of Q2 OR Q2S FLOATS.

Rosemary

Added
And other emphasis. 
And more emphasis.  Sorry guys.  I think I managed my point - finally.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 04:29:31 PM
NOW.  If that much is clear - then let me propose our own interpretation - FOR DISCUSSION.

Effectively what has happened - possibly as a first in the history of electronics - we have engineered a circuit that is not POWERED by the potential difference at the supply - BUT by the circuit components - all on their own.  BECAUSE, during that oscillation it is IMPOSSIBLE for the battery to deliver any energy at all.  The circuit is simply NOT THERE to conduct any current from that battery supply. 

Which is brilliant.  Because that means that the energy that is self-evidently 'sloshing about' as TinselKoala likes to call it - is most assuredly NOT the result of a the transfer of energy as this transfer is understood within the standard model.

And it would have been even MORE brilliant had we designed this deliberately.  We freely confess.  It was a design flaw - AND, NEEDLESS TO SAY - the fault was predictably and ENTIRELY my own. 

Which is also why we've presumed to 'press on' with the proposal that this is all very good news.  Because the results are consistent with a magnetic field model that CONFORMS to the standard model in EVERY RESPECT - saving the proposal of a magnetic dipole as the 'carrier particle'. 

Kindest again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 07:15:49 PM
No comment?  Poynty? 

I've made some really challenging claims here.  Are you conceding this argument?

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 08:23:21 PM
No comment?  Poynty? 

I've made some really challenging claims here.  Are you conceding this argument?

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

May I remind you that I work full time and that I am on the other side of the globe? I am at work right now, just decided to check in here. I can't always be near my computer during the day, and nor should I be.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 08:29:34 PM
You have advised us that a CORRECT measurement is only possible if the probes of the oscilloscope are placed directly across the battery terminals.
Correct.

Quote
WE HAVE DONE THIS.  REPEATEDLY.  NO CONNECTING WIRES OTHER THAN THE CIRCUIT WIRES. 

If you will indulge me, I will make a drawing of your setup and would ask that you identify precisely where the probes were located.

Yes I understand that you have TOLD me this already, but I want to SEE it visually on a diagram which I will provide and number for convenience.

Until I SEE where you have identified the measurement points on a build diagram, I can not be assured the correct measurement points were used.

Do you agree to identifying the measurement points on a diagram I will provide?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2012, 08:36:46 PM
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 08:43:04 PM
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.

Poynt - I am not good at following complex circuitry.  I would prefer it that you simply take our own schematic.  IT IS EXACTLY AS OUR APPARATUS IS SET UP.  Then - if you need to add probes from the scope - if that's what you're proposing - go for it. 

But those switches CANNOT be represented any other way.  They're EXACTLY RIGHT. 

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 08:46:15 PM
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.

Why?  I don't see the point of this.  I assure you I'll not see that oscillation.  And that's what we're discussing.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 09:39:51 PM
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.

Actually Poynt.  With respect.  I cannot tell you how much this sort of post irritates me.  WE ALL KNOW that a load directly in series with a battery supply does not induce an oscillation.  But we don't have a load in series with a battery supply.   HOW WOULD THIS CONSTITUTE PROOF OF ANYTHING AT ALL?  I am claiming that the voltmeter DOES NOT READ THE BATTERY VOLTAGE AS THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED.  IT IS ONLY READING THE VOLTAGE OR POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE AT THE LOAD.  Chalk and cheese Poynty.  They're just SO different. 

PLEASE THEREFORE DO NOT TRY AND SAY THAT 'I've thereby proved to you that the battery voltage is not able to show 0.5 volts.'  WE KNOW THIS.  You're arguing our own point.  If I can get around to it I'll point you to that part of that post of mine WHERE IVE SAID THIS.  Do you ever read what I write?

Regards again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 25, 2012, 09:51:08 PM
HERE IT IS - JUST WRITTEN TODAY.

POYNTY - Trust me I'm calm.  You have advised us that a CORRECT measurement is only possible if the probes of the oscilloscope are placed directly across the battery terminals.  WE HAVE DONE THIS.  REPEATEDLY.  NO CONNECTING WIRES OTHER THAN THE CIRCUIT WIRES.  We've applied ENTIRELY different circuits switched by 555's - and still used our batteries - with LESS THAN 16 inches of wire in those ENTIRE CIRCUITS including the connection to the battery.  WE ALWAYS GET THAT VOLTAGE SWING.  I keep telling you this.  Somehow you keep ignoring it.  Not only did we do this test - but we did it publicly - HERE ON THE FORUM.  I downloaded the data.  I cannot get those scope probes more directly onto the battery - a SINGLE BATTERY - short of soldering them directly to the terminal.  THEY ARE NOT THE RESULT OF OUR PROBES BEING IN THE WRONG POSITION

You need to look deeper Poynty.  I'm trying to show you where to look.

Kindest as ever,
R

And to make it perfectly clear - here it is again.

I cannot get those scope probes more directly onto the battery - a SINGLE BATTERY - short of soldering them directly to the terminal.

Hopefully now that is clearer.  The probe was positioned directly on the battery positive terminal - the Drain rail.  The ground can't quite reach the negative terminal - but with 2 inches of wiring from the neg to the probe's ground - it gets there. 

Then we did an arrangement with short wires connected 2 batteries in series - and the probes placed directly over both terminals.  I think it was Groundloop or someone who explained how to do this.  Can't you remember?

Regards
Rosie

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 26, 2012, 01:24:32 AM
Yes we are discussing the oscillation of what you are calling the "battery voltage", and I am trying  to take steps in order to formulate my argument. However, you seem determined to sidetrack my efforts in this regard. I can not have a meaningful discussion with you if you insist on doing this.

Where did I say that one should expect the simple circuit I explained, to oscillate? One of YOUR arguments is that the battery voltage falls to 0.5V during certain points of the oscillation, correct? With the simple DC test I explained, you will see that when fully loaded with the load resistor, the battery voltage will remain around the 12V mark, perhaps it may drop a volt or maybe 2 if it is already almost completely discharged. You agreed that the worst case load for the battery is the 11 Ohm load resistor, and that is what I am asking for in the test, a simple direct connection, no oscillation, no complex circuitry. This will illustrate that even when loaded with the worst case current, the battery voltage WILL NOT fall to 0.5V

So once again, PLEASE SLOW DOWN, AND STOP READING INTO MY POSTS, just read them for what they are. A little breathing room would be appreciated as well.

Now, will you indulge me and pinpoint the exact probe placements on the diagram that I'll draw up if you agree?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 04:19:57 AM
Hello again Poynty Point,

It does indeed seem that I trip over myself in my headlong rush to get to the point of my argument.  And all this momentum is then in sharp contrast to your own prevarication.  I think it would behoove us both to step back a couple of moments in time.  Indulge me.  You see?  This compulsive need of yours to sketch out a battery with an oscilloscope probe nailed to the positive terminal of a battery and with it's equally abused ground - nailed to the negative terminal - is actually more or less what we have managed.  Cast your mind back - Poynty Point - in time.  Not literally.  lol  Good Heavens.  I don't mean that you must somehow unscrew your head and throw it away.  While that would be an intriguing and laudable feat  and - indeed - an historical event as I'm not sure that there's a precedent - it's not what I actually mean.  Rather what I mean is that you close your eyes, if needs must, and then just look inwards - into those dark and distant recesses of your mind.  Albeit tenuous - and fleeting - as I'm reasonably sure that your brain's geography is also shallow - relatively speaking - then you'll come across that event to which I've alluded - somewhat repetitiously.  Again and again I've explained that we manage an oscillation with the oscilloscope probes placed DIRECTLY on the battery terminals.  But, who can blame me for all that repetition?  It seems to be required in response the the rather repetitive nature of your questions.  Not that I'm complaining.  Golly.  Delighted to spend my time here at the keyboard - day and night - if needs must.  Only too glad to oblige you in any way that you need.  And if that need is also to bang out the same question and entirely IGNORE the same answer - then - by all means.  I've got a shrewd idea that that we could be at it for another day or two.  What the hell.  Another year or two.  It all helps. 

Meanwhile I'll hold back on my own argument.  I rather enjoy the prospect of pointing out the fact that the Q2S has no connection to the battery source rail - or battery negative - again and again.  But I'll wait my turn.  You draw your pretty picture.  I'll then repost my earlier post.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posy

Edited.
Abject apologies.  I referenced battery source and NOT as I undertook - Battery source rail.  But I've now added that 'battery negative number' in case you don't fully understand me.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 26, 2012, 05:36:05 AM
What I find quite curious, is if you performed the battery voltage test as I requested, why you did not post an pictures or video of the result AND the test setup?

As a first step, I need to see precisely where you placed the scope probe to measure the battery voltage. I'll draw something up.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 26, 2012, 06:22:22 AM
Hello again and thanks for letting me barge into your discussion!
Let me first say that I have read your paper Rosemary and I really liked your drawings BTW!! Makes it easier to see where you're coming from (to use the vernacular heh). Now I'm no electrical scientist or anything, but I am pretty intuitive when it comes to 'stuff' so I decided to learn about MOSFETs tonight! (Yay!) What I knew of them (before tonight) is that they are used for fast 'switching'. Wikipedia's definition "A metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) is based on the modulation of charge concentration by a MOS capacitance between a body electrode and a gate electrode located above the body and insulated from all other device regions by a gate dielectric layer which in the case of a MOSFET is an oxide, such as silicon dioxide."
Okay, first and foremost they are CAPACITORS. What do we know about capacitors? They are used for TIMING (pretty much anyways, right?)! With me so far? Okayyyy...
Wiki goes on to say: "Compared to the MOS capacitor, the MOSFET includes two additional terminals (source and drain), each connected to individual highly doped regions that are separated by the body region."
Bottom line is they are STILL capacitors!!
Seems like they would develop a oscillation just from the difference in charging times?!? If all of the caps (er... MOSFETs) discharge at once there would be a pretty large voltage swing at that particular point, correct?
Now, my thinking is if your circuit doesn't keep running when you disconnect the battery (source), then (at least to my thinking) it IS being powered by the battery, however...
I don't see a direct connection (although the 'rail' term is a bit ambiguous, I 'get' it) to the battery where Q2s is concerned... That being said, try counting?
5 time constants to charge/discharge a cap/inductor, same coin right? (Okay, one is magnetic, the other electric (voltaic?), my own theory puts them as the opposite sides of the same coin...) I'll bet that increasing voltage is a result of all those MOSFETs hitting the same discharge cycle at the same time which would explain why that wave gets bigger then stabilizes (out of capacity!). 

I hate to be a pain in the you-know-what but I have a couple requests Rosemary?
1) Can you draw out this circuit with the parallel MOSFETs (instead of just Q2x4?).
2) Can you build this circuit with another type of MOSFET and an LED diode (on each?)?
This would end this debate fairly quickly I'll bet... Unless the frequency is too fast and the LEDs just stay lit...
I don't know about you guys but I can really tell the difference between DC LEDs and AC LEDs...
They should flicker or something with the 'oscillation' is what I'm thinking here.

PC



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 26, 2012, 06:29:24 AM
OK Rosemary,

Please identify using two of the six "P" numbers on the diagram, where the scope probe and probe reference were placed for your battery voltage measurement.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: AbbaRue on January 26, 2012, 07:32:03 AM
Thanks Rosemary for replying to my email so soon and directing me to this new thread on your circuit.

I attempted a replication of this circuit today, but ran into some confusion. 
In my replication Q1 gets very hot but Q2 stays totally cool to the touch.   
Yet the circuit clearly says that Q2 should have the 4 MOSFETS and not Q1. 
Even with 4 MOSFETS connected in parallel at Q1 all 4 get very warm. 
Is there an error with the numbering in the circuit?  If not then what is going on here?
The fact that Q1 gets hot makes sense, because it is connected directly between the heater and .25 ohm resistor.
Q2 shouldn't get hot because as you said, it isn't connected to the negative, it is floating.  So how could it get hot?
If Q2 must be made of 4 MOSFETS, then the 4 MOSFETS must be acting as some kind of energy collector. 
I have to have 4 connected in parallel at Q1 or they will fry, but I will also connect 4 in parallel at Q2. 

Question: Do you need heat sinks on any of your MOSFETS?


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 07:34:31 AM
Hello PhiChaser,

You've based your argument on the fact that a MOSFET transistor is a capacitor because it shares some material properties with a standard capacitor.  Which is interesting.  However, the only thing that it does not share is the ability to store charge.  It is designed to deliver charge.  If it had the ability to store charge then indeed your argument would hold.  But it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to disconnect a MOSFET and then apply it to the same or to an alternate circuit and expect it to then discharge what was first delivered.  That - essentially - would be required for one to argue its definition a capacitor.  Quite apart from which that capacity in that transistor then needs must be ENORMOUS. 

I see where you're going.  You're proposing that during the time that the battery is applying a positive charge to the gate of Q2 - then it's in the process of storing that charge.  Then the switch at the Gate of Q1 changes to become positive.  And simultaneously the switch at the Gate of Q2 changes to become negative.  And somehow, during this transition then all that energy STORED in Q2 is then discharged. On the face of it - it could perhaps be plausible.  Assuming always that it can even find a path through it's source leg Q2S to the Drain rail or battery positive - as Poynty refers to it.  Again.  Bear in mind that IF this energy is being returned it is still showing a voltage that is greater than zero.  And also.  Bear in mind that in the process of returning this energy it is also discharging about 72 000 amps of stored energy.  That's to account for the battery voltage reducing from 12 volts to 0.5.  Which not only begs a storage capacity somewhat larger than a standard capacitor.  But for some reason - rather confusingly - this returning energy BACK to the Drain rail of the battery - that positive terminal - somehow manages to then REDUCE that battery voltage from 12 volts to 0.5 volts,  Under normal circumstances IF energy is returned - one would expect it to recharge that battery.  And one would also expect the voltage to then be less than zero.

But that slew of improbable events is actually not even relevant.  Because, in point of fact, the signal at the Gate of Q2 does NOT change from a positive to a negative during this oscillation.  It stays negative.  For the duration. So.  I'm not sure that this proposal can be resolved by proposing that the MOSFET is acting as a capacitor.  Unless I've missed something.

Regarding your questions. The drawing of the paralleled MOSFET's is doable.  Poynty has some in his own schematics.  And I am not about to alter that artifact - nor am I interested in doing other experiments.  But there's nothing to prevent you from doing this.  And thank you for this proposal.  It is SO much more palatable than Poynty's rather repetitive dialgue while he tries to duck the issue.  At LEAST it's arguing the case.  Most appreciative PhiChaser.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 07:49:49 AM
Thanks Rosemary for replying to my email so soon and directing me to this new thread on your circuit.

I attempted a replication of this circuit today, but ran into some confusion. 
In my replication Q1 gets very hot but Q2 stays totally cool to the touch.   
Yet the circuit clearly says that Q2 should have the 4 MOSFETS and not Q1. 
Even with 4 MOSFETS connected in parallel at Q1 all 4 get very warm. 
Is there an error with the numbering in the circuit?  If not then what is going on here?
The fact that Q1 gets hot makes sense, because it is connected directly between the heater and .25 ohm resistor.
Q2 shouldn't get hot because as you said, it isn't connected to the negative, it is floating.  So how could it get hot?
If Q2 must be made of 4 MOSFETS, then the 4 MOSFETS must be acting as some kind of energy collector. 
I have to have 4 connected in parallel at Q1 or they will fry, but I will also connect 4 in parallel at Q2. 

Question: Do you need heat sinks on any of your MOSFETS?

Hi AbbaRue,

I was hoping you'd come into the discussion - for many reason, not least of which are your skills at replicating.  May I ask if you found that oscillation?  And, by the way, there is no need to parallel those diodes at Q2.  We actually only did that by accident.  And I'm not about to change the circuit.  Not until our papers are published.  Nor do we find any of the resistors ever getting that warm.  That's even on rather high voltage applications.  Those body diodes seem to cope quite adequately. I can't account for your Q2's getting warm.  Unless it's because you've set the offset that the duty cycle is barely on.  We use that setting for our first test as described in our first part of the 2-part paper. 

Please let us know.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

EDITED. (twice)
I highlighted the question.  This may answer your concerns about the heating of those MOSFETs.
And by the way - we do use heat sinks.  They're quite substantial.  I'll see if I can find a shot of these somewhere.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 26, 2012, 07:56:03 AM
Rosemary,

So the charge isn't held in the MOSFETs, I can see that so scratch that off the list of possibilities. I remember reading somewhere that voltage spikes can go reversed bias through a diode. Has this possiblility been considered?
Oscillation means waves meeting waves in some sort of harmony (?) to me (just because I'm a musician maybe?)... 4/4 is a pretty common time signature... (Well, there ARE 4 MOSFETs on one side?)
Have you tried to get the same (similar) results using just 2 MOSFETs for Q2 and adjusting the frequency from your generator to double (or half?)?
And lastly (heh heh, for now) do you think the type of MOS you're using is responsible for your (anomalous) results Rosemary?
I swear I see a mobius loop between Q1 and Q2...

PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 08:12:56 AM
Rosemary,

So the charge isn't held in the MOSFETs, I can see that so scratch that off the list of possibilities. I remember reading somewhere that voltage spikes can go reversed bias through a diode. Has this possiblility been considered?
Indeed.  If you read our second part of that two part paper ( ;D   I'm getting as repetitive as Poynty Point)you'll see that we RELY on these diodes to conduct that energy.

Oscillation means waves meeting waves in some sort of harmony (?) to me (just because I'm a musician maybe?)... 4/4 is a pretty common time signature... (Well, there ARE 4 MOSFETs on one side?)
Have you tried to get the same (similar) results using just 2 MOSFETs for Q2 and adjusting the frequency from your generator to double (or half?)?
Indeed.  One of our collaborators has done many circuits with many different applications.  And he has never paralleled those transistors.

And lastly (heh heh, for now) do you think the type of MOS you're using is responsible for your (anomalous) results Rosemary?
That would be nice.  Then we'd bottle those specs and sell some really unique MOSFETS.  During the nearly 2 years of testing we have replaced 2 FETS.  But we've had some wild voltages that were responsible. 

I swear I see a mobius loop betweem Q1 and Q2...
I'm not sure what gives here PhiChaser.  We went to GREAT LENGTHS to explain in that paper that we only had PARTIAL solutions.  That it needs the input of the expert.  Which, indeed, is why we even wrote that paper.  We need to get it to the academic forum and some dedicated RESEARCH.  The simple fact is we are able to generate a really robust current flow during that oscillation.  And the battery supply is ENTIRELY disconnected so it cannot be considered the power supply source.  Which is also why we refused to do a standard computation of wattage.  How does one argue a negative wattage?  That's absolute nonsense.  No such thing.  Unless our thermodynamic laws are nonsense.  And I'll stake my life on it that they're NOT.  There's nothing wrong with the standard model.  Which means what?  Are we indeed allowing inductive/conductive circuit material to show their potential?  For the first time?  Or have we just got some glitch in that design that is entirely OVERLOOKED.  If the latter - then TRUST ME.  There are minds - considerably better than even our collaborators can bring to the discussion - that have NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND IT. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 08:31:51 AM
OK Rosemary,

Please identify using two of the six "P" numbers on the diagram, where the scope probe and probe reference were placed for your battery voltage measurement.

P2 AND P4 WITH THE USE OF ONLY ONE BATTERY.  I trust that answers your question Poynty.  But having said that I need to add the caveat that we do NOT use that circuit you've drawn.  IT'S SIMPLY WRONG.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 26, 2012, 08:42:23 AM
I agree wholeheartedly that the biggest gap in Maxwell's equations are the equal sign with the negative (exact opposite) numbers(etc..) missing from the other side. And I DID read your paper, even the part about the melting metal in the clay pot over the fire!!
I would even love to duplicate your work but I don't have 6 batteries, a function generator, a scope, or a fluke meter. Or the money for MOSFETS since it sounds like they are expensive (like the rest of that stuff isn't!).
I did notice that you said lead acid battery in one part and nickel something battery somewhere else in there? Sorry, I've read too much today. Keep experimenting and take lots of notes and don't be discouraged by ANYTHING you get out of these forums Rosemary! ;)
Hmmm.. Maybe having four resistors to match (balance?) the four MOSFETs might have something to do with your results?

Kindest regards as well!
PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 26, 2012, 08:44:42 AM
P2 AND P4 WITH THE USE OF ONLY ONE BATTERY.
Not sure what you mean. You had only one battery powering the circuit?

Quote
But having said that I need to add the caveat that we do NOT use that circuit you've drawn.  IT'S SIMPLY WRONG.
That kind of comment does not move this argument forward, does it? What is wrong exactly?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 08:55:42 AM
Not sure what you mean. You had only one battery powering the circuit?
Poynty.  If I had the time or the interest I'd be able to refer you to as least 4 times in the past 24 hours  that I've told you this.  In fact we have NEVER powered the circuit with one battery.  For some reason we need 2 - on our element resistor - to generate that oscillation.  BUT WE HAVE used JUST 1 BATTERY on other circuits.  AND WE GET PRECISELY THE SAME WAVEFORM WITH PRECISELY THE SAME VOLTAGE SWING ACROSS THE BATTERY AND WITH NO MORE THAN 18 inches or thereby of CIRCUIT WIRING.  That oscillation is most certainly NOT dependent on the length of wire that is used connecting the batteries in series or even connecting the batteries to the circuit apparatus.

That kind of comment does not move this argument forward, does it? What is wrong exactly?
What is wrong with that circuit schematic is that the arrangements of the transistors is not our own arrangement.  I only mention this lest in the distant future you then state that I had ENDORSED that schematic. 

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 26, 2012, 09:15:48 AM
Poynty.  If I had the time or the interest I'd be able to refer you to as least 4 times in the past 24 hours  that I've told you this.  In fact we have NEVER powered the circuit with one battery.  For some reason we need 2 - on our element resistor - to generate that oscillation.  BUT WE HAVE used JUST 1 BATTERY on other circuits.  AND WE GET PRECISELY THE SAME WAVEFORM WITH PRECISELY THE SAME VOLTAGE SWING ACROSS THE BATTERY AND WITH NO MORE THAN 18 inches or thereby of CIRCUIT WIRING.  That oscillation is most certainly NOT dependent on the length of wire that is used connecting the batteries in series or even connecting the batteries to the circuit apparatus.

What is wrong with that circuit schematic is that the arrangements of the transistors is not our own arrangement.  I only mention this lest in the distant future you then state that I had ENDORSED that schematic. 
What arrangement of the MOSFETs are you referring to? I've NOT SHOWN ANY arrangement...ON PURPOSE! It's not required. It's called a "block diagram" FYI, and that is why it is labeled "Q1-Q5". You don't think I know the circuit? Do you really think it is necessary to show the MOSFET arrangement in order to further this part of the discussion?

This is why it is near impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you, because you take everything said and either misunderstand it, misinterpret it, or read into it something that is of your own imagination.

And on the battery measurement, sorry, I just don't buy it. Until I see what you've actually done, I can't be assured you did it correctly.

I don't think this discussion will end in any agreement or conclusions, so until and if I ever build this thing, only then will I be able to convince you of your measurement errors. And even then, I'm quite certain you won't accept my argument.

Until then, I bid you adieu. Life is too short for this, and I've got plenty of productive projects on the go that require my deserved attention.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 09:54:29 AM
I've deleted this post because it was a self indulgent tirade with little relevance to the issue.

Apologies to all - including Poynty.

I'll continue on another post.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 26, 2012, 04:56:51 PM
Ok Poynty Point,

Here's the thing.  You need to somehow explain how the battery voltage is wrong.  No good saying that the wires are skewing the results.  The simple fact is that I could have an absurd length of upwards of 20 meters of heavy duty wire leading from that battery to some circuit apparatus - AND STILL THOSE SCOPES WOULD MEASURE THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ACCURATELY.   I can apply a switching circuit at the end of that >20 meters - AND apply a really fast switching frequency.  But provided that frequency is within the scopes broadband width - it's fine.  And those scopes deal with frequencies at mega hertz.  Nothing like the speed of that oscillation.   And even with an impedance from HELL - STILL THOSE SCOPES WOULD MEASURE THE VOLTAGE ACCURATELY.  AND it would accurately show the that waveform - regardless of its complexity.  I may not get much amperage through that wire - and the further from the appliance then the greater restriction to that flow of current.  If there are spikes - it'll show those spikes.  But it will always give PRECISELY the correct waveform across that battery, or THOSE batteries, whatever.  And that scope will give PRECISELY the correct voltage.  IMPEDANCE DOES NOTHING to the voltage that is measured as potential difference from the supply.  When impedance kicks in is when you compute the AMPERAGE based on a measured voltage.  Why do you not know this?  It's elementary.

QUITE APART FROM WHICH - because you went on and on about this being the REASON  our battery voltage is being DISTORTED - I went to some considerable trouble to apply the probes across two batteries in series with their terminals positioned that the scope probe could reach DIRECTLY across the positive and negative terminal.  WE GOT PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS.  TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS POSTED ON OUR THREAD.  Then.  One of the collaborators took the trouble to reply to you on your hate blog.  He EXPLAINED that he had done this test on ENTIRELY DIFFERENT APPARATUS USING A 555 switching circuit.  Go back there and see if you can find it.  Posted there on the 10 November 2011.   Your own comments follow hot in that wake.  (Glad to see you've deleted this year's comments BTW (by the way)).  here's that link.  http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/  It begins 'Hey guys, stop stuffing around with blogspots and build this thing, I did and it worked.'  So.  We've tested this on MULTIPLE CIRCUITS using ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOADS - with or without the use of a single battery from our own bank of batteries or even when using other lead acid or alkaline batteries.  And there's one thing that follows as day follows night.  It's THAT OSCILLATION.  And with the required tuning - THAT NEGATIVE WATTAGE NUMBER.

SO.  Kindly REFRAIN from calling me a LIAR.  Or a FRAUD.  Those tests were DONE AND DUSTED.  And you most CERTAINLY were informed about them.  Quite apart from which - it was seriously the most absurd waste of time that anyone of us has ever engaged in.  It was done ENTIRELY to indulge YOU so that you could put your objection to bed.  It is IRRELEVANT.  You don't need our assurances.  You've got the LeCroy instruments that show us what that waveform is doing.  It's all that's needed. 

What I find particularly painful - is the fact that you go to such extraordinary lengths to advise the world and his wife - that I do not understand basic electronics.  And yet this very basic fact related to elementary measurement protocol - COMPLETELY eludes you.  Or does it?  Are you hoping that the readers here will believe you?  Is this part of that disinformation program?  Those are the ONLY 2 options available to explain this Poynty.  Hopefully it's that you really don't understand elementary measurement protocols.  In which case - WHY DO YOU KEEP ADVISING ME THAT I'M IGNORANT?  Shouldn't you, perhaps, take a look in that mirror you're holding up?

And I assure you I am NOT a FRAUD.  I DO NOT LIE ABOUT OUR RESULTS.  I CAN'T.  I'm just not clever enough.  I RELY on the measurements from those instruments.  And frankly - I don't think it would be POSSIBLE to tamper with results from the LeCroy.  What's shown is what the data IS. 

Regards
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: woopy on January 27, 2012, 12:34:49 AM
I all

hope not to disturb :)

some cents of my experiments

hope this helps :)

good night bat all

Laurent

http://youtu.be/9IE2myPJPzY
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 27, 2012, 01:17:13 AM
Laurent,

If and when you are interested in obtaining a similar wave form to Rosemary's let me know. I'm certain I can help you get there.

Do you have a 10 Ohm power resistor? The only other thing you'll need is some wire, a diode (or the other MOSFET you have there), and your signal generator. It's quite simple, and you're almost there already. Also, you'll need to use at least 24V, but it works better with higher voltages. Your supply goes to 60VDC?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 03:42:58 AM
I all

hope not to disturb :)

some cents of my experiments

hope this helps :)

good night bat all

Laurent

http://youtu.be/9IE2myPJPzY (http://youtu.be/9IE2myPJPzY)

Many, many thanks for trying this woopy.  I am always bowled over by your videos.  You come across as being the most courteous and kindly of people.  I could learn much from you and intend trying.

I'm not sure why you're not getting that oscillation.  I suspect it's that your Q2S is actually not floating.  You need to make sure that it's not connected to the supply source or Battery negative.  When I get my camera - soon now - I'll post some pictures of this. 

Meanwhile you'd be better advised by Poynty and others.  The feasibility of getting the oscillation is absolutely NOT at question.  It's the analysis of that oscillation that's somewhat fraught.

The very kindest of regards to you woopy.  And many, many thanks for your work.  You have no idea how deeply appreciative I am.  I don't think you could intrude on a discussion - EVER.  You're simply not capable of it.

Rosemary

By the way - woopy.  It's interesting that the LED stays LIT despite that voltage reversal.  It implies that there's a continual steady current.  Which is intriguing.  We found this ourselves when we provided two alternate banks to check if the two lines of LED's would alternate on and off.  We found that only one line stayed lit, and it was steady.  No flickering even.  It was intriguing.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 04:41:32 AM
Poynty - now, to continue.

I trust that you understand the significance of that oscillation.  It MOST ASSUREDLY applies to the voltage that the oscilloscope is reading.  And PATENTLY it is NOT reading the battery voltage.  We both agree.  The battery CANNOT be discharging virtually its entire capacity at every half swing' of each oscillation.

IF the MOSFETS Q1 and Q2 are always alternately on - in a 'flip flop' condition - then one could claim that therefore there is a path to enable the continuous flow from the battery.  I agree.  BUT.  Then we would also need to prove that there's a path through Q2S or through the Source Leg of Q2s to the common Source Rail or battery negative.  And then too.  If the path was ALWAYS thereby enabled - then it would show us a waveform that steadied at whatever the battery voltage was - save for the occasional spiking at each transition.  In other words if the battery voltage was 12 volts then it would remain at 12 volts and only diminish as it reduced its potential.

And.  Not impedance nor capacitance nor inductance from anywhere on that circuit material - will alter the actual potential difference that the scope meter is reading.  The voltage is what it is.  The computation of AMPERAGE CURRENT FLOW would need to be mathematically adjusted - in line with that measured voltage.  We accommodate that calculation - when we determine the rate of wattage delivered.  And we are always left with a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.

And what that voltage reading is telling us is that - whatever else it is measuring - it is NOT the battery voltage.  Somehow, through the application of a negative signal at the gate of Q1 - the battery voltage reading is replaced by - or becomes the sum of - the energy that is being delivered elsewhere on that circuit.

To resolve this question first requires some analysis of the potential paths that ARE available.  And then an interpretation of current flow in line with the standard model.  This is the thrust of the analysis in our paper.  BECAUSE - the question of available paths is ENTIRELY RESOLVED IF one applies a dual charge potential to the properties of current flow - that is also then consistent with the measured potential difference from the applied voltage.

Please feel free to comment.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.
took out a sentence as it was repetitive
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 04:49:28 AM
And.  At the risk of putting too much on the table at once - there's that other nagging question related to the circuit that Harti encouraged us to use.  Which is the use of ONLY a continual negative current applied ONLY to the Gate of the MOSFET - when we also only used one switch.  Here there is no argument that the oscillation persists. 

Kindest again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 07:26:07 AM
So.  Poynty, In SUMMATION

It is evident that there is no valid argument to dispute our measurements that also CONFORM to what our standard measurement protocols require.  The fact that I questioned a 'block circuit' is hardly justification to ignore our claim.  If the concern is that this may have INSULTED your intelligence - then it does not.  What is at question is whether or not you can upend our evidence or even our results.  Let me remind you.

We are able to power a circuit with no energy measured to have been delivered by an energy supply source.  As energy is applied during the brief on periods, and depending on the settings at the switch, that power can be high enough to take water to boil and - with a more robust transistors the evidence is that the circuit can also operate in booster converter mode.  This flies in the face of classical prediction and it entirely satisfies your criteria for consideration of your prize - offered for proof of over unity.

In which case we need to negotiate the venue in order to demonstrate this proof, which will be based on the measurement parameters that are outlined in the paper and that are further justified in this rather extensive dialogue between ourselves.

I await word and put it to you that should you refuse to engage - then there is an EXPLICIT acknowledgement of our Claim. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

edited
FOR EMPHASIS
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 07:34:39 AM
And guys, may I add.  I have not heard from Professor E Jones.  He has expressed every interest to get this tested.  If he also does not engage - then presumably he also concedes defeat.  It could be that he's busy during the week.  In which case it's fair and reasonable to leave this open until Sunday.

And regarding Harti's interest.  We none of us have ANY INTENTION of claiming Harti's over unity prize.  This because his prize offer is motivated by a sincere effort to find proof of over unity.  I trust you see the distinction.  But we are more than willing to demonstrate our device to Harti - any time he wishes - preferably from here in SA.  This may satisfy him that Over Unity Breach is 'done and dusted'.  What's at issue now is to check how better to apply this than my own poor efforts.  And I KNOW that he and, indeed, all our experimenters here - would manage this better than me.  I would also add that it may now be as well to re-explore those prior claims by various members - that may have been disqualified in terms of Poyny's measurement analysis.  They're proven to be somewhat flawed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 07:54:43 AM
And while I'm at it.  Guys.  I know that the most of all readers and especially all experimenters in this field - are more interested in the electromagnetic interaction as it relates to motorised energy.  OF COURSE you are.  I've said it before.  It's a sexy application.  It's visually evident.  And, if you could get that motor running, forever, then WHO on God's earth - could argue? 

It is my opinion that actually, the excess, that energy that we access every time we put it to work - relies on a disturbance to the magnetic field.  Which essentially - in terms of the thesis - actually requires the release of heat.  This is always going to be the catalyst to work that energy.  And to access that heat - one way is through the Induction process.  But it is the HEAT itself that is required.  It needs an IMBALANCED or CHAOTIC magnetic field - before any work at all - can be released.  And we propose that in its chaotic condition then it is always measurable and quantifiable - as heat. 

Not sure that this is entirely understandable.  And I'm certainly not sure that this is correct.  But what I do know is that THIS ENTIRELY RESOLVES the question.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

This may explain it better.  The magnetic dipoles assemble in a field condition.  That's in line with Faraday's Lines of Force.  Out of that field condition they are in a transitional chaotic state.  That's when we can measure their heat - most grossly evident as 'flame'.  Then they decay back into their field condition.  That's when the heat dissipates.  And that decay is simply the result of their reassembly or restructuring back into the field condition.  That's when their orbital velocity exceeds light speed.  Which renders them invisible.  And then they're no longer interacting with the material in coalesced matter.  In a field condition they can only interact with those atoms' energy levels.  Which are also invisible magnetic fields.  Which also orbit at 2C.  Effectively the particle in the field is invisible.  Then it's in a structured field condition.  Out of the field condition they're visible.  Then they're simply in the process of getting back into their preferred field condition.  Which conforms PRECISELY to the properties required and attributed to DARK ENERGY FROM DARK MATTER.

In other words.  Every time we see a spark - then we are looking at the magnetic particle that is chaotic and manifest because it's outside it's preferred field condition. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 02:07:04 PM
I have just been cautioned that there are those who are still approaching members who posts on this thread - through the personal messages.  May I please ask you to ignore those advices or challenge them to make their opinion public.  This is an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.  And it is an abuse of that message system.

Kindest again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 27, 2012, 02:18:27 PM
So.  Poynty,
[snip]
I await word and put it to you that should you refuse to engage - then there is an EXPLICIT acknowledgement of our Claim.

And guys, may I add.  I have not heard from Professor E Jones.  He has expressed every interest to get this tested.  If he also does not engage - then presumably he also concedes defeat.

How quaint.  ???
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 27, 2012, 02:53:49 PM
How quaint.  ???

Pointy - may I say.  I find your comment here to be lacking in relevance or indeed argument.  You're in the unhappy position of either needing to defend your stance or endorse our claim.  In the absence of engaging then I assume that you have none.  Or that you can't.  Either way I think you need to publicly withdraw your offer of a prize as clearly it was a RUSE to lure our poor unsuspecting claimants into a trap.  I rather suspect that they relied on you to give a scientific dissertation - or at its least - a scientific argument.  Actually, I think we all did.  And as it turns out - not only can you NOT do a standard exercise in power analysis but that your commitment is to deny and deny and deny.  Which is unfortunate.  But - thankfully - this little exercise has exposed that motive.

Take care Poynty Point.
Kindest regards, as ever,
Rosie Pose

Here's a more adequate and impartial analysis of what has actually been going on.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-niceties-related-to-that.html

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 12:34:33 AM
Rosemary, I have a question for you. It doesn't directly pertain to the oscillation, but it is related and I am curious to know how you think about this.

Here it is:

If we could separate the connection to the battery positive terminal from your circuit into 2 connections, one only allowing the battery to discharge (current from the battery), and one only allowing it to charge (current to the battery), based on your theory that the battery is receiving a net charge overall, what would we expect to see in terms of current flow on those two paths?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 02:05:52 AM
Rosemary, I have a question for you. It doesn't directly pertain to the oscillation, but it is related and I am curious to know how you think about this.

Here it is:

If we could separate the connection to the battery positive terminal from your circuit into 2 connections, one only allowing the battery to discharge (current from the battery), and one only allowing it to charge (current to the battery), based on your theory that the battery is receiving a net charge overall, what would we expect to see in terms of current flow on those two paths?

Poynty.  I have no idea.  And I'm not sure that it will serve anyone that I now start to speculate.  I wonder if I could impose on you to answer a SLEW of questions that I've put to you related to your counterclaim?  That would have the very real merit of being 'on topic'. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 03:11:58 AM
Poynty.  I have no idea.  And I'm not sure that it will serve anyone that I now start to speculate.  I wonder if I could impose on you to answer a SLEW of questions that I've put to you related to your counterclaim?  That would have the very real merit of being 'on topic'. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
I see.  :o

I had the distinct impression that you felt you had a rather good handle on the current flow into and out of the battery, since your entire claim seems to ride on the notion that more current (and hence charge) goes back to the battery than what comes out of it. Isn't part of your claim that your COP= INFINITY? I guess I was mistaken.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 03:58:57 AM
Poynt. Can I impose on you to READ OUR PAPER.  That way you'll realise that our claim most certainly DOES NOT rely on the fact that MORE CHARGE IS returned to the battery to RECHARGE it.  IF ONLY.  Then we would INDEED be dealing with something that has no relevance whatsoever to standard physics.  We are none of us magicians.  I can't magic energy out of nothing.  What we propose is that the battery supply source becomes a passive component - which adds to the sum of the energy that is delivered by the circuit components during each phase of that oscillation.  Effectively it is providing the continued potential difference that is required to sustain that oscillation.  BUT.  The battery supply source merely RETAINS its potential difference.  I have not seen evidence of a recharge.  Nor have I seen evidence of a discharge.

The fact is that you and your 'friends' have been advising the ENTIRE WORLD that I have some fanciful proposal based on 'Zipnots' as it's described, that perform feats of magic - HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR THESIS OR OUR TESTS.  What it DOES have is the rather shameful proof of how little you understand or understood our proposals.  However.  Let me ASSURE you that you are entirely WRONG in those assumptions.  WE RELY ON THE STANDARD MODEL OF PHYSICS.  ELSE - with good reason - you and your 'friends' would be well justified in applying all that scorn.  Now.  I can live with that abuse.  It has no material relevance to our thesis or to our tests.  But what I can't live with is the arrogant assumption that you can not only detract interest from our own technology - but that you all go to such absurd lengths to discount ALL evidence - on the rather reckless and mistaken presumption of authority.  That assumption.  That you are - all of you some kind of representative authority - that ALSO KNOWS BEST.  Patently - your skills and the skills of your 'friends' are somewhat lacking.  And yours and their knowledge is also patently in need of some elementary familiarity with some essentially fundamental concepts related to basic physics.

Now.  I have always assumed - notwithstanding the these concerted and rather bigoted attacks on me and on this technology of ours - that we are, nonetheless - reaching a wider and more impartial audience.  It seems that I'm right.  And that's my mission.  My mission is, to the extent that I am able - to share some rather intriguing insights related to the nature of energy itself.  And I'm not ALONE in that.  I share it with my collaborators.  I share it with many people who I correspond with.  I even share it with some rather weighty academics.  Very few academics I might add.  But that there are any - I see as a kind of triumph.

You see this Poynty.  There are those theoreticians who would drown in circuit analysis.  There are those ace electronic experts who would drown in physics theory.  There are those chemists who would drown in both fields.  And there are those in both fields who would drown in chemistry.  One is NOT automatically STUPID because one is not familiar with any one or other of these branches of one single field of science.  And, for some reason - you have been at some considerable pains to capitalise on my acknowledged ignorance of electronics to JUSTIFY all that abuse.  Fag the detriment to my own name.  Just look at what you manage when you destroy a dynamic new field of investigation.  The more so as that topic is opened for general discussion - under what one assumes is the rather hygienic and well aired platform of 'OPEN SOURCE'.  One doesn't get a foot in.  Because there's a parade of opinions from highly opinionated members who seem to need this daily dose of abuse - to feed their rather over inflated pride and their over inflated egos.  It does science no good.  And frankly, the sooner this abuse is addressed and challenged, and the sooner it disappears from these forums - the better.  Because OPEN SOURCE is actually - the only way to go with ANY NEW TECHNOLOGIES related to these energy breakthroughs.  Else we'll forever be grid bound.  Or we'll be at the mercy of monopolists.  And that is very far from promoting 'the greatest good for the greatest number.  On the contrary.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 
 ADDED
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 04:10:59 AM
Then perhaps you can explain what it means exactly when YOU MEASURE and boast about a significant NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 04:14:04 AM
Then perhaps you can explain what it means exactly when YOU MEASURE and boast about a significant NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER?

I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit.  What on EARTH are you on about?
Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 04:18:17 AM
I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit. What on EARTH are you on about?
Indeed? What is the "computed negative wattage" above?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 04:24:13 AM
Indeed? What is the "computed negative wattage" above?

This is now getting absurd.  HAVE YOU EVEN READ OUR PAPER?  That explains the measurements.  We measure that the amount of energy delivered by the battery - related to the amount of energy returned to that battery together with the evidence of some SIGNIFICANT heat measured over the resistor - indicates that there is more energy returned from the circuit and circuit components than was first delivered by the battery supply source.  This with the caveat that we are applying STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS - which may not be appropriate.  So.  The question in that paper is this.  ARE WE DEALING WITH A STANDARD ENERGY SUPPLY?  The paper is open ended.  It draws no CONCLUSIONS save those that are MEASURED according to the measurements that are REQUIRED by standard physics.

I'm not sure what you're missing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 04:44:42 AM
What the second part of that paper suggests is a possible solution.  But even that solution conforms to the standard model.  AND it conforms to the experimental evidence.  But it is not PEDANTIC.  It is merely a proposal.  And, in as much as it does not CONTRADICT what is evident - then it may be a valid proposal.

Again, regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 05:39:23 AM
I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit.  What on EARTH are you on about?
Regards
Rosemary
Really?

That more energy is returned to the battery than was first delivered by the battery.  This is evident in the computation of wattage based on vi dt - the product of which results in a negative wattage.

Quote
DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT HUGE SURPLUS OF ENERGY DELIVERED BACK TO THE BATTERY.

From your paper:
Quote
This results in an oscillation that is
robust and generates strong current flows that reverse direction, first flowing from and then back to the source and thereby alternately discharging and recharging the battery supply.

What may now be required is arevision of classical power analysis as the computation of
wattage returned to that supply results in a negative value,
which has little, in any, relevance within classical paradigms.

A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the
source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flowboth to and from the battery supply source.

This allows a current flow generated
by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to rechargeit.

Because the sum of the energy returned to the battery isgreater than the energy delivered, these test results appear to
contradict the requirement of a co-efficient of performance
(COP) equal to 1.

Infinite COP is defined as the
condition where more energy is measured to have been
returned to the energy supply source than was first delivered.



What we measure is that the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is less than the amount of energy that is stored and then delivered BACK TO THE BATTERY.



We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE



And then this contradiction:

We do NOT recharge the battery.  What we manage is to NOT DISCHARGE IT.
  ???



IF the inductor STORES ENERGY then we would NOT get more energy returned to the battery than was supplied BY the battery. 


Therefore the battery is NOT ABLE TO DELIVER ANY CURRENT FLOW.

How then could energy EVER be delivered to the circuit?



The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain.

That's precious. If the scope probes are on the Drain and Source rails, then they most definitely are not DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.


Quote
We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail.

Again, sounds like your probes are on the proto board, not over at the battery terminals.


Effectively what has happened - possibly as a first in the history of electronics - we have engineered a circuit that is not POWERED by the potential difference at the supply - BUT by the circuit components

That one is priceless. Why do you use any battery at all then?  ::)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 05:48:54 AM
Poynt - I haven't got the energy at the moment to answer this new slew of misrepresentations.  But I'm REALLY pleased that you are FINALLY referring to our paper.  I will explain the significance of all your points - IN CONTEXT.  You manage to separate this with such extraordinary dedication.  But right now I'm due for some shut eye.  Hang fire there Poynty Point.  There's NOTHING I enjoy more.  But I'll need to defer that pleasure.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 05:54:54 AM
I wouldn't trouble yourself Rosemary. The fact that you contradict yourself left, right and centre lends little credence to your responses....it's like closing the barn door after the horses have left. But if you'd rather dig that hole you're in even deeper, go right ahead.

In the meanwhile, I'm working on something you'll really enjoy!  ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 06:12:58 AM
And back to my question:

If we could separate the connection to the battery positive terminal from your circuit into 2 connections, one only allowing the battery to discharge (current from the battery), and one only allowing it to charge (current to the battery), based on your theory that the battery is receiving a net recharge overall, what would we expect to see in terms of current flow on those two paths?

In the present circuit, the two paths are in fact one. So tells us, what would we see....according to Rosemary?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 28, 2012, 08:08:11 AM
I can see where Poynt99 is going with this one Rosemary...
If you disconnect the battery negative (source) and the circuit doesn't keep running, then it isn't powering itself (obviously). If you hook the positive (ground side) of the circuit to a different (unconnected) battery (or the 'floating' side of your circuit as Poynt99 suggested) and it won't keep running, that is because it isn't self powering (again). The potential (difference) in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery. (My humble opinion at least as far as my admittedly limited electrical background goes...)
Now, that being said Rosemary... If you can CONTINUOUSLY generate a bunch of heat and NOT discharge your batteries AT ALL (or recharging themselves somehow as your circuit functions), then you have indeed found something AWESOME!!! Heat means work potential! Woot!
Er... So what gives?!?
BTW, you two crack me up!!

PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 08:40:47 AM
Hello again PhiChaser

I can see where Poynt99 is going with this one Rosemary...
If you disconnect the battery negative (source) and the circuit doesn't keep running, then it isn't powering itself (obviously).
We do disconnect the battery.  There is no question that the battery is not able to deliver energy.  Again - read that paper.  We propose that the battery is playing a passive role.  I'll see if I can find the extract.

However, the distinction is drawn that the battery primary supply is a passive component during this oscillation. And while it is evident that it fluctuates in line with the applied current flow from the oscillation, yet its average voltage does not appear to rise significantly above its rating either during or after these tests which would be proof of a recharge in the oscillation cycle. But nor is there evidence of a loss of voltage. In fact these results point to an energy supply potential in circuit material that may be exploited without a corresponding loss of energy from the battery supply source. This requires a fuller study, which is the overarching intention of this publication.

And that was proved by our test that we conducted with the use of capacitors.  In other words, for that oscillation to be that robust and self-supporting  it also needs access to the potential difference at the battery supply.  It does nothing to the battery voltage itself.

If you hook the positive (ground side) of the circuit to a different (unconnected) battery (or the 'floating' side of your circuit as Poynt99 suggested) and it won't keep running, that is because it isn't self powering (again).
How?  How does one expect a battery to play any part at all in the oscillation - when it's not even connected to the circuit? If you're proposing to put those batteries in parallel - then you will need a connection between their drain rails (positive terminals).  In which case?  Which battery is delivering and which isn't?  If you entirely disconnect the Drain rail - or positive terminal - then how does the circuit material take advantage of the potential difference that we've determined is required?  The potential difference in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery. But it is NOT DISCHARGING CURRENT. It's not the first time that the proposal has been made to develop an ENTIRELY different circuit - to get it to generate PRECISELY the same results.  But when has that ever been appropriate to science?

Now, that being said Rosemary... If you can CONTINUOUSLY generate a bunch of heat and NOT discharge your batteries AT ALL (or recharging themselves somehow as your circuit functions), then you have indeed found something AWESOME!!! Heat means work potential! Woot!
INDEED.  And IF there is any reason to DEPEND on conventional measurement protocols - THEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE.  Otherwise, which may come out in the wash is that conventional protocols are NOT ENTIRELY APPLICABLE.  And this because there is some aspect of electric current flow that has been overlooked.  I can only assure you that we have NEVER recharged the 6 batteries that are now powering our circuit.  That's now over a period of nearly 18 months I think it is.

We have anomalous test results that require detailed and thorough research to a level of expertise and budget that none of us collaborators can afford.  Therefore we have put all this evidence in a perfectly clear paper for this to be evaluated by experts.  The problem is that Poynty is posing as an expert.  And that is dangerous.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Edited.  All over the place.  But mostly just punctuation, spelling, and removing a reference glitch related to sizing.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 01:48:49 PM
Dear Poynty Point,

I've been struggling to answer that list of misquoted quotes in your last post.  In fact I've been at this for most of the day - between cat naps, cooking and a bit of shopping.  Here's the concern.  If I didn't know better, and if it wasn't that people tend to allow their 'signature' writing styles.... to intrude  8) no matter what - I'd almost be inclined to think that there's a Professor Steven E Jones, lurking in the background of this last post of yours.   :o   Golly.

This is because that slew of nonsense shows an uncharacteristic 'flair' for ABSOLUTE misrepresentation that you, Poynty Point - lack.  And this is mostly managed through the artifice of 'snips and 'snaps and what have you's.  If you are - indeed - there, JouleSeeker, Steve, Professor, PhysicsProf, whatever your preferred title, then PLEASE.  ENGAGE.   ;D I'd be delighted if you would read through these last 400 posts - or thereby.  It may familiarise you with Poynty's argument.  If such it is.  And I'm rather relieved  to think that you're there at all.  God knows, Poynty needs all the help he can get.  And don't be daunted by the sheer weight of number of those posts.  You'll see that the most of them are actually just repeats of the same question.  Poynty has a 'thing' about asking the same thing over and over - in the hopes of testing whether or not he can do this into infinity.  It's his own rather esoteric dialogue with the more challenging aspects related to boundaries.  Are they infinite?  Or are they finite?  Where does repetition end?  And where does good sense begin?  And so it goes.  And then, INDEED.  I'm challenged to answer each and every one of those questions knowing full well that my answers will be ignored.  Not that I mind.  I'm happy to allow him any kind of 'handicap' that he chooses. It's just that I also think that we would all rather like to conclude this thread.  So.  If you're there - then when I address Poynty - it is inter alia - also addressed to you.  And correspondingly - if I lapse and address you - then indeed it is inter alia - also addressed to Poynty Point.  Take you pick. 

And as a kick off, I wonder if I could impose on you both to ONLY reference our current paper.  It seems that you're indulging in a rather liberal access to previous papers and current papers, and quotes out of context and quotes with NO 'snips?   :o ::) One is rather inclined to think that the substance of the allegation -  matters not.  Just the telling of it does.  That's certainly following in the rich traditions established on these forums.  But it does very little to get to the substance of the argument.  You see this?  It relies on those techniques of propaganda which we've mentioned before.

I must say I was going to reference each and every 'snip.  But then I realised that I'd be falling into the trap of taking the trouble to deny.  And denial is always a rather weak argument.

Kindest regards to the one or the other of you - or indeed - to both.
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 02:17:48 PM
No answer to that question then I suppose?


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 02:21:23 PM
No answer to that question then I suppose?

No.  Not one that I can rustle up.  I'd hate to be accused of speculating.  Actually I could take a flier at this.   If that oscillation persisted then the chances are that it will increase the voltage potential over the battery that's being supplied current - in line with that drain rail.  And it will, correspondingly DECREASE the other.  But I have no clue.  It's not about our circuit.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 02:27:40 PM
No.  Not one that I can rustle up.  I'd hate to be accused of speculating.

Strange, you shouldn't have to speculate if you know how the circuit works. Allow me to give you a clue, even though according to you I have none.

If one could indeed separately measure the current flow in both directions, reference the positive terminal of the battery, one would see, according to your notion that more energy is RETURNED to the battery than is SUPPLIED by it, a higher net average current flowing into the battery than what is flowing out.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 02:32:37 PM
Strange, you shouldn't have to speculate if you know how the circuit works. Allow me to give you a clue, even though according to you I have none.

If one could indeed separately measure the current flow in both directions, reference the positive terminal of the battery, one would see, according to your notion that more energy is RETURNED to the battery than is SUPPLIED by it, a higher net average current flowing into the battery than what is flowing out.

Poynty.  I wonder if we could impose on you to draw...  8) that circuit?  That way we're referring to the...  8) same thing.

Rosie pose

EDITED.
Corrected the punctuation in line with my preferred style of writing.  Much needed.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 02:54:23 PM
Poynty.  I wonder if we could impose on you to draw that circuit?  That way we're referring to the same thing.

Use the same bulb and diode for each leg, and one has a real simple method to see which path has the higher current, or IF there is current in each path at all. One might have to experiment with a few different 12V bulbs.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 03:07:55 PM
Use the same bulb and diode for each leg, and one has a real simple method to see which path has the higher current, or IF there is current in each path at all. One might have to experiment with a few different 12V bulbs.

We've done that test.  Cast your mind back to the post by woopy.  It was certainly made within the last two days - so it's not that far back.  You may recall?  Or not?  There may yet come a day in our lives that you actually show proof of ever reading anything at all that I write.  NOW.  Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then.  THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK.  The oscillation persists.  With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number.  No need to speculate.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

LOVE the new name, by the way (BTW).  Brings to mind the 'rat pack' and a really interesting period in our history.  Also runs parallel to those early insights related to the need for 'missing energy' - now widely referred to as 'dark energy' and still in line with Einstein's preferred term 'Aether'.  Perhaps you could advise MileHigh about this.  He's hopelessly - or maybe 'hopefully' confused about the physics required in support of the evidence of all that dark matter.  lol.  Or as he puts it lolololol   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 03:12:01 PM
We've done that test.  Cast your mind back to the post by woopy.  It was certainly made within the last two days - so it's not that far back.  You may recall?  Or not?  There may yet come a day in our lives that you actually show proof of ever reading anything at all that I write.  NOW.  Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then.  THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK.  The oscillation persists. With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number.  No need to speculate.

I've not seen YOUR test results with this. On your circuit this test would not be possible with LED's in place of the bulbs, as they would burn out in an instant, or at least one would anyway.

Also, which 'rail' stays lit?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 03:16:02 PM
I've not seen YOUR test results with this. On your circuit this test would not be possible with LED's in place of the bulbs, as they would burn out in an instant, or at least one would anyway.

And there it is again.  The open accusation that I'm a LIAR.  I AM NOT LYING.  I DID NOT SAY THAT WE TESTED THIS ON OUR CIRCUIT.  We tested this principle on a separate circuit.  You were FULLY INFORMED.  Evidence is in that hate blog to which I referred previously.  It was posted around the 10th November or thereby 2010.  It is ONLY INTRIGUING by virtue of the fact that the current appears to be running in both directions through the one rail.  WHICH is evidence that there is a path in both directions.   Which is consistent with the thesis.  Which is detailed in the 2nd part of that 2-part paper.

Kindest regards,

Edited.  I added more to this rather short post.  Sorry.  You may need to refresh the page.
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 03:18:55 PM
And there it is again.  The open accusation that I'm a LIAR.  I AM NOT LYING.  I DID NOT SAY THAT WE TESTED THIS ON OUR CIRCUIT.  We tested this principle on a separate circuit.  You were FULLY INFORMED.  Evidence is in that hate blog to which I referred previously.  It was posted around the 10th November or thereby 2010.  It is ONLY INTRIGUING by virtue of the fact that the current appears to be running in both directions through the one rail.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Since you've NOT tested this on your RAT circuit, you can not presently know what the result will be. Woopy did not perform this test btw.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 03:24:03 PM
Right, and since you've NOT tested this on your RAT circuit, you can not presently know what the result will be. Woopy did not perform this test btw.

So?  We did NOT perform this on our RAT circuit.  We could not.  As you pointed out those lights would BLOW.  And woopy actually showed us his own LED that stayed bright - curiously.  But admittedly he used a transformer as opposed to the inductance from an element resistor.  I'm SURE that this will entirely OBVIATE the relevance of his tests as far as you're concerned.  Fortunately you're not the adjudicator.  Else we'd be in the rather fragile position of allowing YOU to determine anything at all.  As I mentioned in that paper.  We need experts.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 03:28:24 PM
So?  We did NOT perform this on our RAT circuit.  We could not.  As you pointed out those lights would BLOW.  And woopy actually showed us his own LED that stayed bright - curiously.  But admittedly he used a transformer as opposed to the inductance from an element resistor.  I'm SURE that this will entirely OBVIATE the relevance of his tests as far as you're concerned.  Fortunately you're not the adjudicator.  Else we'd be in the rather fragile position of allowing YOU to determine anything at all.  As I mentioned in that paper.  We need experts.

Regards,
Rosie
Soooooo, don't imply that you DID perform the test on your circuit, when in fact you didn't. Yeah, you DID imply it...read your reply again:

We've done that test. NOW.  Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then.  THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK.  The oscillation persists.  With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number.  No need to speculate.

And once again Woopy's LED test is not even remotely related to the test outlined in the schematic I just posted.

And again, until you DO perform this test (with bulbs, not LEDs) on your RAT circuit, you can not and will not know the results.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 03:34:49 PM
We've done that test.  Cast your mind back to the post by woopy.  It was certainly made within the last two days - so it's not that far back.  You may recall?  Or not?  There may yet come a day in our lives that you actually show proof of ever reading anything at all that I write.  NOW.  Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then.  THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK.  The oscillation persists.  With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number.  No need to speculate.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

LOVE the new name, by the way (BTW).  Brings to mind the 'rat pack' and a really interesting period in our history.  Also runs parallel to those early insights related to the need for 'missing energy' - now widely referred to as 'dark energy' and still in line with Einstein's preferred term 'Aether'.  Perhaps you could advise MileHigh about this.  He's hopelessly - or maybe 'hopefully' confused about the physics required in support of the evidence of all that dark matter.  lol.  Or as he puts it lolololol

WHERE in this post did I say that we applied that test to our circuit?  I SIMPLY SAID THAT WE'VE DONE THAT TEST. And we most certainly have.  It is all the more significant PRECISELY because it was a replication of the oscillation on an entirely different circuit.  Don't get picky Poynty Point.  It serves nothing.  WE HAVE TESTED THE PRINCIPLE.  The evidence suggests that the current flow is enabled through both directions of the circuit 'drain rail' or battery positive - and that is certainly in line with the thesis that relates to the charged property in current flow.  Else in one or other direction - there should be NO current flow.

Again,
As ever, Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 03:41:42 PM

By the way - woopy.  It's interesting that the LED stays LIT despite that voltage reversal.  It implies that there's a continual steady current.  Which is intriguing.  We found this ourselves when we provided two alternate banks to check if the two lines of LED's would alternate on and off.  We found that only one line stayed lit, and it was steady.  No flickering even.  It was intriguing.

And here's the postscript that was addressed to Laurent.

edited.  added that emphasis - and then made it more comprehensive
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 03:43:18 PM
WHERE in this post did I say that we applied that test to our circuit?  I SIMPLY SAID THAT WE'VE DONE THAT TEST. And we most certainly have.  It is all the more significant PRECISELY because it was a replication of the oscillation on an entirely different circuit.  Don't get picky Poynty Point.  It serves nothing.  WE HAVE TESTED THE PRINCIPLE.  The evidence suggests that the current flow is enabled through both directions of the circuit 'drain rail' or battery positive - and that is certainly in line with the thesis that relates to the charged property in current flow.  Else in one or other direction - there should be NO current flow.

You're just spewing BS Rosemary. You don't get it do you?

IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS TEST ON YOUR RAT CIRCUIT, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE RESULT...PERIOD!

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You can not extrapolate results from some different circuit, especially when you are making such bold claims as you are. YOU NEED TO TEST THE CIRCUIT IN QUESTION.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 03:54:15 PM
You're just spewing BS Rosemary. You don't get it do you?

IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS TEST ON YOUR RAT CIRCUIT, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE RESULT...PERIOD!

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You can not extrapolate results from some different circuit, especially when you are making such bold claims as you are. YOU NEED TO TEST THE CIRCUIT IN QUESTION.

POYNT.  We are exploring the significance of an OSCILLATION - that appears to persist - despite the fact that the battery terminals are disconnected.  We can possibly DEBATE whether or not the battery is disconnected on our circuit - because it has that Q-array.  HOWEVER.  There is no DEBATE related to a circuit that ONLY has a negative signal applied, CONTINUOUSLY, to the GATE OF THE ONLY MOSFET IN THE CIRCUIT.  THEN WE KNOW that the battery is disconnected.  Therefore did we test this on that alternate circuit.  And therefore, can we conclude that IF the oscillation persists in the face of a disconnected battery - then INDEED the question is where does that energy come from?  Which is precisely why we tested this PRINCIPLE and precisely why we needed to do this on an alternate circuit.  This was largely motivated by Harti's questions related to this. 

NOW.  What that alternate circuit PROVED is that the voltage across the battery - with the oscilloscope probes CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE BATTERY TERMINAL - shows that the oscillation is going 'full tilt' EVEN when that battery is disconnected.  Which it is.  It is disconnected for the duration.  We're only using one transistor.  And we're only applying a negative signal to that gate.

Regards,
Rosie

edited.  Major error there where I referenced the positive rail.  Sorry.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 06:42:10 PM
A treat for you Rosemary:

http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/msg310972/#msg310972 (http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/msg310972/#msg310972)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 08:00:07 PM
I deleted this ENTIRE letter to Poynty.  It was way too long and we all know that Poynty never reads the first or last sentence of my posts.  And little - if anything - between them.

Regards
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 28, 2012, 08:02:57 PM
Cool stuff, this method work with a modified sine-wave inverter ?
(I need to measure the input power from the DC side for my resonant amplification experiment: all measure will be in DC to avoid error...)
Can I use it for a rectified unfiltered DC OUPUT ?


Edit: I have also a scope (DSO 2090) to get REAL power including AC (distorted dephased sine wave of course), I can use the Math function ChannelA mean * ChannelB mean ?


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 08:12:59 PM
Cool stuff, this method work with a modified sine-wave inverter ?
(I need to measure the input power from the DC side for my resonant amplification experiment: all measure will be in DC to avoid error...)
Can I use it for a rectified unfiltered DC OUTPUT ?

Hi Schubert.

Yes I believe it will also work when using a rectified unfiltered output. To confirm, I will do a simulation on it and see. The worst case scenario if this did not work, would be to utilize some large filtering caps on the rectified output. But again, I don't think it will be necessary. Are you using a CSR as well?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 08:31:49 PM
What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 08:40:41 PM
What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE AND KINDLY GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

My dear Poynty Point.  Where EXACTLY have you proved that our measurements are erroneous?  And shouldn't you WARN Schubert that his test has nothing to do with our circuit?  And even less to do with proving over unity?  Is he aware of your agenda?  And shouldn't you and he and whoever else wants to - continue to engage on your revived thread?  I'm not sure that this new venture into a new misdirection is going to help anyone other than you and your 'friends'.

As I see it I've gone to some considerable lengths to PROVE that your arguments are neither logical nor scientific.  I can happily go through all those arguments again.  I see NO evidence of that you've disproved anything at all.  On the contrary you have NOT been able to counter a single argument.  And you MOST CERTAINLY are required to DISPROVE THOSE ARGUMENTS.

Regards,
Rosie




Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Actually - this post of yours should be framed - as a sample of what happens when you run out of argument and find yourself with a mouthful of teeth.  Anyway Poynty - here's my answer.  BTW I've just seen the frightening length of it.  I'll need to split these posts AGAIN. 

What are you going on and on about Rosemary?
I believe I'm claiming a prize that you've got on offer - is what I'm going on about.

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.
I'd be glad to pretend to believe you - if it helps at all.  But the evidence rather speaks against this.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.
That's rich.  We've had a parade of the most atrocious measurement analysis applied to utterly unscientific assumptions - and you say that YOU'RE embarrassed.  You should be.  It's disgraceful.  I'll take the trouble to list them ALL in a separate post.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.
The ONLY thing in science that can be considered nonsense - must FIRST be based on the lack of experimental evidence.  We have an ENORMOUS amount of evidence.

edited.  Took out the word 'scientific'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:39:08 PM

2/continued
I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.
I have NEVER been concerned with the 'size' of an audience.  That's your department.  And with good reason.  Your subscription rate on your own forum is rather sad.  I think the public are rather tired of all that repetitive self-absorbed nonsense - flaunted as 'higher knowledge'.  It's essentially a bit too dry.  I doubt that there are many who are that concerned about my views either.  Ever.  But it doesn't stop a stream of correspondence that I get.  So there's SOME interest.  But.  It's not a popular digest.
 
So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?
I'm not sure Poynty?  Certainly if you and Gravock and MileHigh and TK and Humbugger and others are counted in that number I'd say that the dozen or so of you obviously don't cut it.  Certainly NOT when I have the entire strength of the standard model behind our thesis and our experimental evidence.

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY,
I agree.  But the problem is in your definition of CORRECT.  This is another little exercise that I'll detail later - which I KNOW will conform.  Then INDEED - you'll agree.

AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES.
This is actually funny.  Here I was thinking it was YOU who had overlooked that Q2S thing.   ;D    You've got to laugh Poynty Point.  It's really rather funny.  And all the time I thought you'd seen it.  Again, as MileHigh puts it.  'lololol' 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:41:13 PM
3 continued/
FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY.
Again.  All I can say is that you're AMAZING.  You asked us to perform a test which we'd done.  Surely you don't want us to simply go on and on repeating everything you DEMAND - when there's so little sense in it.

YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER,
Again.  I'm still laughing.  It's preposterous.  I have over 230 tests completed and over 560 downlaods and they're all available.  Anytime you want.  Call for some data.  I'll show it.  We've got loads.

AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.
This falls into the category of an ALLEGATION.  So.  Unless you show us where it's flawed - I'm afraid we're inclined to dismiss this as another attempt at 'scraping that barrel'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:44:00 PM
4 continued.
THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES.
Not actually.  What was presented was the evidence  The measurements related to that evidence is confirmed as detailed in that paper.  The applied protocols conform to standard requirement.

THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS
YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM.
We ALL, that is the collaborators, the most of the scientific community find that the evidence conforms to your own.  And that is NOT as you're now trying to present it. 

GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.
For my part I'll pass on this.  My interests are in the theory.  BUT.  The collaborators are MORE than competent at this, considerably more than yourself.  And it's their endorsement that I depend on.  Not yours.  After all.  You REFUSE to even evaluate the evidence on offer.  How scientific is that?

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!
NO. Absolutely NOT.  Not until you manage a single cogent argument against our data.  Then I'll sit up straight and take notes.

Which, leaves me in the unhappy position of putting on record that you either need to evaluate the evidence that we've presented - in the context in which we've presented it.  Or acknowledge, by default - that you owe us your prize money.  And I would be most anxious to get hold of this.  God knows.  I could make a donation of it to someone with experimental skills so that they could advance over unity. 

LOL.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 28, 2012, 10:41:42 PM
Hello again PhiChaser
We do disconnect the battery.  There is no question that the battery is not able to deliver energy.  Again - read that paper.  We propose that the battery is playing a passive role.  I'll see if I can find the extract.

However, the distinction is drawn that the battery primary supply is a passive component during this oscillation. And while it is evident that it fluctuates in line with the applied current flow from the oscillation, yet its average voltage does not appear to rise significantly above its rating either during or after these tests which would be proof of a recharge in the oscillation cycle. But nor is there evidence of a loss of voltage. In fact these results point to an energy supply potential in circuit material that may be exploited without a corresponding loss of energy from the battery supply source. This requires a fuller study, which is the overarching intention of this publication

Were does it say you disconnected the battery and it kept working?!?

Quote
And that was proved by our test that we conducted with the use of capacitors.  In other words, for that oscillation to be that robust and self-supporting  it also needs access to the potential difference at the battery supply.  It does nothing to the battery voltage itself.

How?  How does one expect a battery to play any part at all in the oscillation - when it's not even connected to the circuit?

Good question! I didn't say it did. Your circuit diagram DOES have batteries connected to it.

Quote
If you're proposing to put those batteries in parallel...
Nope, didn't propose that. I propose just taking current FROM one battery to supply the 'connected' part of your circuit and pOUT to ground, or another battery, or anything else BUT the other side of your battery.

Quote
If you entirely disconnect the Drain rail - or positive terminal - then how does the circuit material take advantage of the potential difference that we've determined is required?
You said it powered itself, not me...

Quote
The potential difference in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery.
Right on.
Quote
But it is NOT DISCHARGING CURRENT.
Shazam!!! There is where things get interesting. Okay, I get that.   
Quote
And this because there is some aspect of electric current flow that has been overlooked.
What I see is a function generator connected to an interesting mosfet circuit with some resistors and powered by batteries... (Just curious: Are your results the same if you use a .25ohm resistor instead of four 1ohm resistors in parallel?)
 
Quote
I can only assure you that we have NEVER recharged the 6 batteries that are now powering our circuit.  That's now over a period of nearly 18 months I think it is.
Now THAT is worthy of study, no doubt about that. HEAT = WORK. Free heat = free work.

Quote
We have anomalous test results that require detailed and thorough research to a level of expertise and budget that none of us collaborators can afford.  Therefore we have put all this evidence in a perfectly clear paper for this to be evaluated by experts. 
Perfectly clear? If it was perfectly clear WHY is this particular discussion going on for this long??? (My own contribution notwithstanding..) As far as experts to research your findings, why don't you go to your local college and find some grad students to look at what you've got. My point is don't just look here...

Quote
The problem is that Poynty is posing as an expert.  And that is dangerous.

If he works in the field for a living, I would say that would make him a professional. An expert in the field of OU? Not sure there is such a thing. I suppose that if he has tried his best to duplicate your circuit (and everything else that came down the pike) and hasn't had the same results, then you two should collaborate to figure out what the deal is. I can see you're both smart enough to know we're on the same team... (At least I hope we are...)
Again, my take on your circuit Rosemary: If you have stumbled across a circuit that generates heat without ever discharching your batteries then is seems like COP=INFINITY... Hmmm, that is a pretty bold statement! ;)
Get on with your bad selves!!!!
Kindest and all that...
PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 06:43:44 AM
Were does it say you disconnected the battery and it kept working?!?
In the paper?  The introduction to the second part states

'The oscillations are robust and they represent a current flow that continually reverses direction.  This results in a wide swing of the battery voltage that climbs and falls, well above and below its (here referring to the battery supply source) rated capacity.  Also of interest is that there is no circuit path afforded for this discharging period of each cycle within the standard reference, as its path is blocked, both by the transistors' body diodes and the negative signal applied at the transistors' gates.'

But I've just had a cursory read through the First Part.  You're right. I can't see a direct reference to this.  I'll need to re-read it. THANK YOU PhiChaser.  If it's not stressed then it may be as well to do so.  I'll check through that paper later today and with my collaborators.  It reminds me how valuable is Open Source.

Good question! I didn't say it did. Your circuit diagram DOES have batteries connected to it.
When a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1 - and if those transistors are working - then what has happened is that the batteries are disconnected.  That's not speculative.  That's FACT. That's what that switch does.  It's either 'on' or 'off'.  Think of it as a light switch.  But an amazing switch that can turn on really, really quickly.  The question is ONLY this.  If Q1 is 'off' is Q2 then 'on'?  In other words are we simply allowing the current to flow through another switch?  We can certainly claim that the batteries are NOT connected at Q1.  But?  Are they still perhaps connected at Q2?  Definitely doable BUT ONLY PROVIDED that the switch at Q2 has a full path to conduct that current back to the battery.  But.  It doesn't.  It's also OFF.  To take the analogy further - its connection to that battery is BROKEN.  Technically it CANNOT enable a flow of current from that battery.  There is no connection of Q2 source to the Source rail or battery negative - during this period.  That's as good as leaving the switch 'off'.

However, just in case we've made a mistake - we build another circuit - take OUT Q2 and simply apply a negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  NOW.  NO QUESTION.  The batteries are DISCONNECTED.  That switch if 'off'.  And what we found is that the oscillation STILL persists.  And NOW?  Hopefully you see this PhiChaser.  The battery is NOW unarguably DISCONNECTED.   And, because we still see that oscillation - then?  Wherever it may be coming from - it ain't from that battery.  This isn't an obtuse argument.  It's very simple and very simply proved.  That was the point of those series of questions that spanned about 10 pages of this thread.   Firstly Poynty missed the fact that there was no connection at Q2S.  Then, he proposed is that there's an 'on' moment and an 'off' moment - so that there would be a kind of two step - dance step between switches.  But he's wrong.  We're all familiar with the shape of the waveform from a standard switching circuit.  And if the battery is permanently connected - then we know what that waveform looks like. There would be absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that oscillation. Then he proposed that we were lying about that test using just the one switch.  That's always his fall back. 

It worries me that you didn't follow this in those arguments outlined earlier to Poynt in this thread.  If you're reading here and clearly you're reading carefully - then how many others have made the same assumptions you have?  Poynt's last argument was based on the fact that the transistors operate in 'flip flop' mode - or something like.  I countered then that oscillation would NOT BE POSSIBLE.  Because then the battery would then be continually CONNECTED.  And it would also continually discharge energy through either Q1 or Q2.  Back to the light analogy.  The light would stay on.  Which means that there could not be any oscillation at all - certainly not to sustain the second half of that waveform.  And that's not MY argument.  It's the inevitable consequence because that's what those transistors do.  If they're opened or 'off' - they can't conduct current.  If they're closed or 'on' they do conduct.

The only time - historically - that this waveform has been seen - is in a parasitic oscillation - which is the hellish result of paralleled transistors.  BUT even then - that oscillation has NEVER been seen to persist over time.  Ours does.  It persists for the duration that there's an applied negative signal at the gate of the MOSFET.  So.  We can validly claim that we are generating a robust current flow from somewhere.  It is self-sustaining.  It can cook the element resistor.  And it sure as hell is NOT from the battery supply.

I'm ending this post here.  I'll pick up on your other points later.  Hope this clarifies that really important question.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Swapped paras around for emphasis
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 07:42:55 AM
Nope, didn't propose that. I propose just taking current FROM one battery to supply the 'connected' part of your circuit and pOUT to ground, or another battery, or anything else BUT the other side of your battery.
I can't follow this at all.  Can you also perhaps draw a circuit?  If there is no connection to the battery supply then that battery can't supply.  If there IS a connection then there has to be some commonality between batteries.  If they're paralleled then all terminals would be connected and we'd have the same conditions that we see.  If they're not - then either one or the other would be supplying - which by default means that one or the other is discharging. 

This same questions persists through all the following quotes PhiChaser.  And I think they're argued in that earlier post.  If not - then let me know.

.   You said it powered itself, not me...
.   Right on.Shazam!!! There is where things get interesting.
.   Okay, I get that.
.   What I see is a function generator connected to an interesting mosfet circuit with some resistors and powered by batteries

Regarding this question
(Just curious: Are your results the same if you use a .25ohm resistor instead of four 1ohm resistors in parallel?)
Not on our circuit.  On others where we generate considerably less voltage.  Then it's within their tolerance levels.  We anticipate that the use of ours will introduce a margin of error which is factored in. But as we're not dealing with marginal evidence, in fact we've got huge energies being dissipated - then that potential margin of error is indeed marginal.  We only use those resistors because we need to accommodate the high current flow.

Now THAT is worthy of study, no doubt about that. HEAT = WORK. Free heat = free work.
I'm not sure that it's 'free'.  What we find is that it's ridiculously cheap.  Certainly far, far cheaper than our paradigms allow for.

Again, kindest
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 07:57:28 AM
Actually - back to this question and my reply...

I can't follow this at all.  Can you also perhaps draw a circuit?  If there is no connection to the battery supply then that battery can't supply.  If there IS a connection then there has to be some commonality between batteries.  If they're paralleled then all terminals would be connected and we'd have the same conditions that we see.  If they're not - then either one or the other would be supplying - which by default means that one or the other is discharging. 

I'm taking the trouble to post over Poynty's schematic.  Not sure if it's what you had in mind.  But if it is, then, as mentioned - we've tested this.  Except that we used LED's in place of lights.  What we found was that the one rail stays lit.  The other not.  Poynty asked which one stayed lit.  I can't for the life of me - remember.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 29, 2012, 08:07:19 AM
Rosemary,
Thanks for taking the time re-word it and put it more plainly for me. It does make more sense when worded that way maybe... I really do try to keep up, I just don't know much about transistors/MOSFETS (although I'm trying to learn, honest I am!).
Not sure your light switch analogy holds since you can still get oscillation from an open circuit. A cheap AC tester will beep near 'hot' wires (current oscillation) whether the light switch is 'on' or 'off'.
But I think I really DO get it now, and please correct me if I'm wrong (again)...
To use your switch analogy you really need two switches correct? So... Let's see if PC really does 'get it' or needs another 'explanation'!

Let's say that Q1 is the breaker (switch) in the panel that opens and closes the circuit from the power company (battery source). When the breaker (Q1) is turned on, power can go (from source through Q1) to the light switch (Q2) which is turned off. As soon as Q2 gets power from Q1 it turns on completing (closing) the circuit to the light bulb (turning it on) AND trips the breaker (turning Q1 off) at the same time. Even though the circuit breaker (Q1) is in the off position the bulb stays lit and you can see the bulb/light switch circuit oscillating but the supply (current) running from source to Q1 is ZERO??? Do I get it now?

PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 08:37:09 AM
Rosemary,
Let's say that Q1 is the breaker (switch) in the panel that opens and closes the circuit from the power company (battery source). When the breaker (Q1) is turned on, power can go (from source through Q1) to the light switch (Q2) which is turned off. As soon as Q2 gets power from Q1 it turns on completing (closing) the circuit to the light bulb (turning it on) AND trips the breaker (turning Q1 off) at the same time. Even though the circuit breaker (Q1) is in the off position the bulb stays lit and you can see the bulb/light switch circuit oscillating but the supply (current) running from source to Q1 is ZERO??? Do I get it now?

PC
PC?  Is that what you're prefer to be called? Anyway.  Regarding this explanation. It's NEARLY right.

Let's say that Q1 is the breaker (switch) in the panel that opens and closes the circuit from the power company (battery source). When the breaker (Q1) is turned on, power can go (from source through Q1)...
This is right.

BUT this, not so much...
to the light switch (Q2) which is turned off. As soon as Q2 gets power from Q1 it turns on completing (closing) the circuit to the light bulb (turning it on) AND trips the breaker (turning Q1 off) at the same time. Even though the circuit breaker (Q1) is in the off position the bulb stays lit and you can see the bulb/light switch circuit oscillating but the supply (current) running from source to Q1 is ZERO?

Here's an even easier explanation. Current is dynamic.  It always moves.  And it always moves from its source, wherever that is - back to its source - wherever that is.  IF it CAN'T get back to its source - then it simply CAN'T flow.  There would be NO CURRENT.  That's a GIVEN.  No-one would presume to argue.  Various forms of Flux can flow away from its source.  CURRENT CAN'T.  So.  If you use a breaker, or whatever you want - if you OPEN the circuit - you're preventing the current flowing FROM its source BACK to it's source.  Which means that there's simply no current.  Now - we also KNOW that if current is NOT flowing - then there's NO ENERGY BEING DELIVERED.  Which means that a disconnected power supply - is simply NOT able to deliver any energy at all. 

Which is why the energy delivered is measured in voltage - x - the amount of current flow - x - the period of time over which that current flowed.  The voltage or potential difference at the supply source - CAN DO NOTHING - unless it can deliver current.  And it can't deliver current through a circuit that is OPEN - or DISCONNECTED. 

PC.  I am DELIGHTED to explain this.  If you're asking - and you're really bright - then how many others are asking the same thing?  This is the problem with these forums and the beauty of Open Source.  We never know if we're entirely understood.  In any event.  You see this now?  When  Q1 has a negative signal applied to the gate - then that circuit is OPEN.  The voltage potential at the batteries can do NOTHING.  They're passive.  The same applies to Q2.  Unless it's connected to that 'battery negative' - it also can't deliver any current.  Simple really.  And there's no connection to the battery from Q2S to the negative terminal of the battery.  Therefore it can't deliver current.  Which means that regardless, when Q1 has a negative applied signal then there's NO OPEN PATH FOR THE TRANSFER OF ENERGY FROM THOSE BATTERIES.

What's intriguing about those MOSFET transistors - or switches - is that they have what is called a body diode.  This is biased to allow current flow to move in an OPPOSITE direction.  It's dielectrics are designed to take an 'opposing' current to the current that is first applied.  We use that.  Because - here's the thing.  When current flows its also induces an IDENTICAL AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE OVER THOSE CIRCUIT COMPONENTS.  But.  Most importantly.  That potential difference is PRECISELY opposed to the supply.  Now.  If the circuit is OPEN and the battery can't deliver a current from a positive potential difference (that battery voltage) - but there's a body diode that's pointing in the right direction - to be loaded with a whole lot of negative voltage - then it CAN find a path - THROUGH THOSE BODY DIODES.  So.  The circuit can take current from one direction.  But it can't take current from another.  The traditional supply source - being the batteries - have been taken out of the equation.  There's very clear evidence of current flow.  So.  It MUST therefore, be coming from the circuit material. 

Are you there yet?  Let me know.  This is really nice.  I'm feeling rather smug that I can explain this.  It's a first that anyone has asked me.  LOL.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

ADDED - for clarity
and changed 'delivered' to 'transferred'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 08:58:14 AM

Here's an even easier explanation. Current is dynamic.  It always moves.  And it always moves from its source, wherever that is - back to its source - wherever that is.  IF it CAN'T get back to its source - then it simply CAN'T flow.  There would be NO CURRENT.  That's a GIVEN.  No-one would presume to argue.  Various forms of Flux can flow away from its source.  CURRENT CAN'T.  So.  If you use a breaker, or whatever you want - if you OPEN the circuit - you're preventing the current flowing FROM its source BACK to it's source.  Which means that there's simply no current.  Now - we also KNOW that if current is NOT flowing - then there's NO ENERGY BEING DELIVERED.  Which means that a disconnected power supply - is simply NOT able to deliver any energy at all. 

Just another quick point.  If you think of the flow of current like the flow of a river - then that's good.  Except.  Don't presume that Q2 can act like a dam wall.  It can't.  It can't store the flow of current.  Not even a capacitor can store charge unless it is also first charged by the 'moving current' flow.  Which means that it too - needs to provide some path for that current to get back to the supply source that's charging the cap.

And if you've refreshed the page to read this - then read back over the previous - because I've added some highlights.
Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 09:39:26 AM
And again, Guys - girls,

Unfortunately - when and IF you post on this thread - then you'll probably get a private message from one or more of our 'detractors'.  This communication - which is conducted in 'secrecy' and behind 'closed doors' is not only an abuse of the forum facility - but an abuse of OPEN SOURCE.  May I ask you to please ignore the communication - or ask that the opinion is aired on the forum.  Else - I'm fighting shadows.  And that's simply not fair.  We've been heavily compromised by ALLEGATION.  And allegation that is also conducted through whispers in dark corners?  That we can't fight.

Better still ignore the communication.  Or - if you want to check any facts that you may be inclined to believe.  Then just ask.  Before I end this thread - hopefully soon now - then I will MOST CERTAINLY give a cogent list of those abuses against this technology - so that you can all see the extent to which this group of detractors has gone - to frustrate this technology.  And you REALLY need to ask 'why'?

Regards again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on January 29, 2012, 12:19:02 PM
What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

Well said 99 my hat off to you sir for your perseverance,
if there was an award for contradiction and twisting of the truth Rosemary would have won it years ago.
Most of us remember a nice member called Fuzzy tomcat  that used to post here until he got involved with Rosemary's claims and I think it almost drove him insane.

Sadly I don't think Rosemary can ever admit her flawed judgement after-all what would she have left in her life if it wasn't for her extravagant claims.
it's a shame we have these arguments but it's important that People understand the truth.

And for anyone new here that thinks I am part of a conspiracy, please please click on Rosemary's name and then look through all her previous post and see the truth yourself.
Over the many years it always comes down to the sad fact that her claims of OU are just that claims and nothing but claims.

Rosemary's determination to carry on claiming her circuit produces free energy is now legendary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 01:41:34 PM

Perfectly clear? If it was perfectly clear WHY is this particular discussion going on for this long??? (My own contribution notwithstanding..) As far as experts to research your findings, why don't you go to your local college and find some grad students to look at what you've got. My point is don't just look here...

This is another intriguing question.  You will notice that our paper is a collaboration between myself and 5 others.  One of those collaborators is partially qualified but, as a mature student he's now working on his Electrical Engineering degree. The other four are credentialed.  One is even working on his doctoral thesis - in an unrelated matter.  One has a Masters degree and another and Honours degree.  None of them are interested in going 'open source'.  This, because the dialogue tends to become confrontational - as you've seen.  And all the more so - when the claim is as confrontational as ours.  The requirement therefore is to write a paper.  Put our findings in clear terms - and let the academic expert iron out the issue.  We all are in perfect consensus.

However.  What we're pointing to is a breach in the unity barrier that should not, technically, be possible.  There is nothing comfortable about looking at evidence that flies in the face of general academic understandings - the more so as these men are our authority.  They're actually TEACHING us all we know about electrical engineering.  Now.  It's generally acknowledged amongst electrical engineers that current flow is the result of the flow of electrons.  I'm not sure if you've read my comments about this.  But - just for the record - here they are.  You don't have to read the whole thing.  The pertinent points are in the first two pages or thereby.  And what it shows is that, actually, even in the application of this widely applied and most profoundly simple concept is a mishmash of contradictions that beggar belief.  Here's that link.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html)

So.  When an entirely uncredentialed rather old woman - from the back of beyond - comes up with proposals that electric current flow may be the movement of magnetic particles - then - appropriately - there's a howl of protest.  What you and I are listening to - here and on every thread that I've been involved in - is that howl of protest.  It is the nature of the claim.  NEVER in the history of science - has any profoundly different explanation been imposed on any aspect of science - without that HOWL.  And the louder it is - it is precisely proportionate the level of 'difference' associated with that thinking.

Which is why I have been careful - always - to assure all and sundry - that INDEED - this is NOT in contradiction to known physics.  Save that it would mean an abundance of energy that has, heretofore, been associated only with Dark Energy - and, by definition therefore, it is neither perceptible - nor accessible.  When you put that particle in a magnetic field construct - then it EXPLAINS all the forces.  And it makes this energy supremely tangible.  Then it appears that this 5th force, that has been marching alongside our known 4 forces, rather quietly and unobtrusively, looking to be seen, is actually the PRIMARY source of our energy.  And what it also begs is the possibility that the electromagnetic interaction is only a secondary phenomenon. As indeed are the strong and weak nuclear force and gravity.

Now, I'm not going to allude to any history.  Because that would be an open invitation for a renewed attack.  In any event I don't need to.  All that is needed is to state that IF indeed, this concept is right, then frankly, we have solutions to our energy problems that are not resolved by this technology, not even by LENR - but by both these and many, many much more simple applications that require nothing more than the careful shaping of magnets   And this would deliver an abundance of energy that will put our nuclear power supplies, our coal burning or whatever generators, our cars, our aeroplanes, the entire thrust of our extant technologies - into the dark ages.

But it's not easy to introduce new concepts.  God knows.  I try.  And the ONLY reason I keep doing this in full view of the public - exposing myself thereby to the full force of that 'attack' - is because this knowledge NEEDS MUST GO TO EVERYONE.  Else we'll be trapped in that horrible condition where we rely on the EXPERT for our right to engage in science.  The rather noble art of science relies NOT on authority - but on enquiring minds.  Else it simply wont evolve.  And enquiring minds are likely to confront science with uncomfortable and inconvenient truths.  I would not recommend anyone follow in my footsteps if they're anxious to promote their popularity.

Regards,
Rosemary.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 29, 2012, 05:19:34 PM
Thanks for the reply Rosemary!
Yes, PC is just fine. (My real name is Derrick just for the record.) Glad I got it almost right.
I can see that those 'body diodes' are what is unique about those MOSFETS. Regarding those: Your circuit still looks like it has a mobius loop in those MOSFETS to me. 
In reference to the battery questions earlier, I KNOW that you need a completed circuit to the source to extract that potential. I thought perhaps you had somehow 'moved' that potential into your MOS 'grid' (which is why I had all those 'broken' ways to wire the circuit, see?).
I should step back a bit and keep reading (as always). As far as explanations go (sorry to jump around, I just woke up), I've always found it beneficial to come to a consensus before advancing the next proposal. Lots of proposals around here but not much consensus.
Rosemary, have you tried building the same circuit using off-the-shelf parts?? Seems to me like that would be the best way to truly solidify your claims. Open forum projects are great until the parts start becoming too exotic/expensive... How much do those things cost?
If you could build your circuit with cheap-o parts there would be a greater likelihood that more experimenters would try to verify your results. Makes sense right?
Again, great fun reading your threads! I need more coffee...
I am SO glad the project I'm working on doesn't have any electronics LOL!!! (At least so far heh..)

PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 07:07:06 PM
Poynt, if you're still there.  I wonder if you could ask MileHigh to get his head out of those clouds and his feet on the ground.  He's seriously proposing that upwards of 5 amps can flow into the ground rail of the probe - through all the circuitry of the signal supply source, nuke the most of those rectifiers, fry the delicate potentiometers, burn up most of that circuitry of that really sensitive instrument, that is decidedly NOT designed to take high amperage.  And he then proposes that it can come out on the other side at the probe of the signal generator - to confront an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  It needs to reach Q1's source rail.  So it IGNORES that signal?  It simply overrides the applied charge and slips onto the source leg of Q1S.  And then it flows unobstructed to the supply source or negative rail of the battery.  That's unlikely.

If he's suggesting that the current from the battery can simply flow through the Q2 transistor at Q2's Drain through to Q2 Gate - AND THEN DIRECTLY ONTO THE CIRCUIT at it's  source rail (or the negative battery terminal thing) then it would need to bypass it's own Source Q2S leg.  Which means that we'd see a very visible arcing sparking flow of current in mid air, as it tries to find safe landing on a really slim landing site all of which is to managed while the current is in a kind of free fall.  That's also unlikely. But both options are interesting on a speculative level.  Especially as it would introduce some utterly exotic, if somewhat improbable, physics.  And show him the schematic again.  Here it is.

Q2s or the source leg of Q2 has NO CONNECTION AT ALL with the circuit battery negative.  IT FLOATS.  I really need a shot of this to show you guys.  Hopefully soon. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Small edits.  Can't remember them all.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 29, 2012, 07:32:48 PM
I'll need to answer your post later tonight Derrick.  Hopefully you don't mind if I drop that PC.  I get caught up on the need to be politically correct.  And I'm evidently not much good at that.  It's a constant reminder. 

BRB (be right back)  :-\
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 29, 2012, 11:48:59 PM
MH has responded at OUR. He is correct in what he is saying. I said the same thing long ago.

There is indeed a path to ground through the FG output.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 12:45:16 AM
Cool stuff, this method work with a modified sine-wave inverter ?
(I need to measure the input power from the DC side for my resonant amplification experiment: all measure will be in DC to avoid error...)
Can I use it for a rectified unfiltered DC OUPUT ?


Edit: I have also a scope (DSO 2090) to get REAL power including AC (distorted dephased sine wave of course), I can use the Math function ChannelA mean * ChannelB mean ?

Hi Schubert.

I speculated wrong. The averaging method does not work for your scenario. Why? Because we are not starting with a pure DC supply such as would be the case with a battery. See the post here for a few more details:
http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/msg311079/#msg311079

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 03:22:15 AM
Hi Derrick,

Apologies for the delay. 

Your circuit still looks like it has a mobius loop in those MOSFETS to me.
You've mentioned this before.  I'm going to have to read up about a mobius loop.  I'm not sure what it is.  But if it's simply that 'continuous loop' described by Wiki - then indeed.  I think you're right.  It's a wild voltage swing that never finds a balance.  But I'll check it out more thoroughly - when I've finished here.

In reference to the battery questions earlier, I KNOW that you need a completed circuit to the source to extract that potential. I thought perhaps you had somehow 'moved' that potential into your MOS 'grid' (which is why I had all those 'broken' ways to wire the circuit, see?).
Yes.  I see that.  What has now proposed that this current flows from the battery through the signal generator.  Which, in effect, is in line with your proposal.  I'll get back to this argument.

I've always found it beneficial to come to a consensus before advancing the next proposal. Lots of proposals around here but not much consensus.
Fair comment.  But my reference to those 'inconvenient truths' is simply to remind you that the basics of current analysis (literally and figuratively) has not been resolved.  Not by a long shot. And a purist would NEVER refer to current flow as a flow of electrons.  My reference to 'inconvenient truths' is a reminder to everyone that electron current flow is not so much a theory as it is an abuse of logic.  It's rather tiring reading everyone's reference to this with a kind of God like authority when it's about as appropriate as stating that the sun circles the earth.

Rosemary, have you tried building the same circuit using off-the-shelf parts?? Seems to me like that would be the best way to truly solidify your claims. Open forum projects are great until the parts start becoming too exotic/expensive... How much do those things cost?
Of COURSE - it can be built.  And it's a relatively cheap build.  I think the most expensive item are those IRFPG50's.  But, if you're seriously proposing to do this build - then email me your address - and I'll simply post you a couple.  I'm not doing any more experimenting and I've got some spare.  We over supplied as we anticipated a need.  In fact those little transistors are relatively robust.  And the only other thing I want to do related to this circuit - is a demonstration for Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones, when I claim their prize money. 

If you could build your circuit with cheap-o parts there would be a greater likelihood that more experimenters would try to verify your results. Makes sense right?
INDEED.  Provided only that we 'iron out' the significance of that oscillation - which is relatively easy to replicate - then it would be WONDERFUL.  It's the best possible way of getting this to the table.  Then you guys can work out how to apply it.  THAT - would be excellent.  You see, experimentation is NOT my thing. I am your ultimate clutz.  It's my only failing.  ;D

Kindest and best Derrick
Rosie
Copious changes, including switching paras and punctuation and - I think - some spelling.  Apologies. It's this early morning light and my poor eyes.  We struggle.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 04:06:18 AM
Hi Derrick,

I've now gone through that 1st part of that 2-part paper.  You're right.  We've not stressed that battery disconnect thing.  When it comes back from review I'll see if we can put it in.  Should be doable as it's a small edit.  Many thanks for pointing this out.  It's more or less the 'theme' of the second part of that paper.  But I think it should at least be added to the intro of the first part.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

added
 And I've now looked up that mobius strip.  It's mind boggling.  And strangely apt as an analogy.  A sort of bending of space.  Nicely symmetrical.  I've actually just cut a strip of paper to test it.  Can't see where it's relevant to the toroid which, apparently, is the logical extension.  But it certainly argues the logical reversal of current flow.  If that's in the context that you're seeing it.   If they could design a roller coaster like this then we'd all get a second ride for free - before we could 'dismount'.  Nice.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 30, 2012, 05:40:21 AM
Rosemary,
A torus would need to be wound in M. Rodin's fashion to make it a mobius loop. If you haven't heard of a Rodin (or Rodin's) coil, you should take a peek.
Surprised you haven't heard of a mobius loop?!? (Fun ideas to fall asleep to!)
Yes, a funny sort of 'feedback' circuit that oscillates back and forth. Also, it really does look like an infinity symbol if you had to draw it one dimensionally. (M.C. Escher drew a great one with ants...)
Or it could be drawn as a loop within a loop...
I have a question about your circuit: Is your signal generator an AC device? If it is then you can't use DC circuit theory (exclusively anyway) to do your math. An AC oscillation can show up on a DC circuit right?
Cheers,
Derrick

Edit: Changed function to signal.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 05:51:19 AM
Rosemary,
A torus would need to be wound in M. Rodin's fashion to make it a mobius loop. If you haven't heard of a Rodin (or Rodin's) coil, you should take a peek.
Surprised you haven't heard of a mobius loop?!? (Fun ideas to fall asleep to!)
Yes, a funny sort of 'feedback' circuit that oscillates back and forth. Also, it really does look like an infinity symbol if you had to draw it one dimensionally. (M.C. Escher drew a great one with ants...)
Or it could be drawn as a loop within a loop...
I have a question about your circuit: Is your signal generator an AC device? If it is then you can't use DC circuit theory (exclusively anyway) to do your math. An AC oscillation can show up on a DC circuit right?
Cheers,
Derrick

Edit: Changed function to signal.
Nice to see you there Derrick.

We don't use DC theory at all.  And the signal generator is an AC device.  But I'll get back here when I FINALLY get around to answering MileHigh's points.  I'm struggling.  :(
 
BBL ((variation of BRB - intended to represent be back later) also intended to keep fully defined acronyms which is their preferred use)   :o And, btw (by the way) there's a great deal I haven't heard about.  But I HAVE heard about Rodin's coil.  I get it NOW that that's a mobius loop.  I'm not the brightest button in the box - as they say.  lol
 
 Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 10:00:42 AM
My dear PoyntyPoint and MileHigh,

MH has responded at OUR. He is correct in what he is saying. I said the same thing long ago.

There is indeed a path to ground through the FG output.

You'll both need to forgive my use of logic to counter your rather imaginative proposal.  I know you both find this rather unpalatable.  But it's all I've got to argue my case - unfortunately.  And.  Trust me on this.  It's that thing that most of us rely on to advance science.  I know it's rather prosaic.  Certainly in comparison to the wild speculations that you seem to prefer.  Not that I don't appreciate the FLAMBOYANCE of your proposals. This being that the current from the battery supply can intrude onto the circuitry of the functions generator through that generator's ground terminal and straight through that machine.  Effectively you're proposing that in the process of locking the front door, so to speak, we're opening the back door to the welcome intrusion and incursion of anything lurking in that general vicinity.  It's an open invitation to 'come on in'.  'Make use of these facilities'.  'To your heart's content' ...  Not literally.  :o   OBVIOUSLY.  But you get the drift - I hope.  This is where one relies on that imaginative reach.  Which you both seem to have to some extraordinary excess.  Golly.

As it relates to current flow, what we now have is a veritable torrent of positive current streaming from the positive terminal of the battery supply.  And that, in absolute DEFIANCE of that 'offset' switch.  You recall?  We can set that switch to prevent any current flow.  Which means that those batteries couldn't - by rights deliver any current at ALL.  Or so one would hope.   >:( Certainly that's in line with the specifications - those idle  boasts - of all four function generators that we've EVER USED.   Anyway.  So.  Notwithstanding it's best efforts - that offset switch is simply IGNORED.  Clearly.  This particular battery has a mind of its own.  It DISREGARDS instructions.  If something says 'STOP' then it says 'NO'.  Or 'NO WAY HOZAY'  And when that switch tells it  'DO NOT DISCHARGE ANY CURRENT' - then it braces itself for a confrontation.  It exercises it's freedoms of expression.  It says 'I MOST CERTAINLY WILL DELIVER CURRENT'.   And as good as its word it then spits out enough current flow to drown out all protest.  It comes out in full force.  Demanding RECOGNITION.  It's current flow with a difference.  With a personality.  It's determined.  And that poor function generator?  Well.  That's it's 'bitch'... in a manner of speaking.

So.  It storms the front door - Q1G - finds it locked.  Then turns tail and tries the back door.  Q2G.  This is OPEN.  Whereupon it rides roughshod over any or all of those wires inside his bitch's house and then through a miracle of some considerable dimension it wangles its way back to the function generator's signal terminal.  Now.  That function generator -  that poor bitch, had applied a really modest negative signal here.  Under normal circumstances this would have been enough for that current to turn tail and RUN.  But not now.  No SIR.  Now it overpowers that sad little protest at the gate of Q1 - opens that 'locked door' through a miraculous 'coincidence of good timing'.  AND without breaking a sweat.  AND THEN?  It simply marches back to the negative terminal of the battery to the tune of 'Born Free' and under your star spangled banner.   And that poor little negative signal at the Gate of Q1?  That 'thing' that usually stops all that current from the battery - IN ITS TRACKS?  This now just DISAPPEARS  Somehow.  It just 'folds' - 'melts away' - in the face of this onslaught from the rear end? It's a wonderful theme.  A triumph against all odds.  The overcoming of all resistance.  Good over evil.  Et cetera.  Et cetera.  Positively epic.

And by the way (btw) 8) Thank you for acknowledging that it is not feasible for that charge to simply leapfrog over from the gate of Q2 to the source rail of Q1.  At least that argument's been put to bed.  And MileHigh thank you for teaching me the proper terms for the function generator's signal and ground terminals.  Glad you made sense of the argument - notwithstanding.  It's a tribute to your flexible mind which only seems to experience rigor mortis when it confronts proof of over unity.  It's a shame.  Otherwise you'd be a good potential candidate for the cause.  lol.  or lololol

Kindest regards to you both,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 11:03:04 AM
Sorry - I should also have added,

IF indeed, the current from the battery can intrude through that circuitry of the signal generator then it needs must flow CONTINUOUSLY - as there is no evident resistance in it's way.  In which case there would be no oscillation.

IF, in the unlikely event that current flowed at all, and that it still manages upwards of 5 amps - despite the added resistance presented by the components in the signal generator - then it would need an applied voltage well in excess of that supplied by the batteries at the supply.

IF the current indeed DID reach the gate of Q1 - then it would not be able to exceed the applied negative signal at that gate - assuming that the generator still was able to apply any signal at all - after that incursion.

IF in our Test1 the current was flowing despite the offset 'setting' then the fault is with signal generators.  All 4 of them. Actually it's would also need our Tektronix and LeCroy oscilloscopes to LIE about its voltage readings.  Because they also can't pick up any evidence of a current flow.

I think that's a fair summary.  IF I think of any other points I'll add them here.

Again, regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 30, 2012, 12:17:00 PM
@ .99 Thank you for your input, for measurement method.
(I reply here because I can't reply in your topic, the forum have no reply button don't know why...)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 02:37:06 PM
Ok Guys,

This may be a bit precipitous.  But I'm almost inclined to think that ALL Poynty's, and indeed MileHigh's objections have now been addressed.  What we're now left with is our initial claim where we're seeing a continual current flow in an oscillation that is most certainly NOT coming from the battery supply.  What is exceptional about this is - not that it's robust, which it is, not that it's exploitable, which it is - but that it's there at all.  Because, in terms of our standard model, the assumption is made that the battery supplies energy to the circuit.  And right here the evidence is that the battery is NOT supplying energy to the circuit. 

Be that as it may.  The fact is that on all our measurements - and we ONLY apply standard measurement protocols - there is the measured evidence of more energy being, dare I say it 'generated' on the circuit - than was supplied by the supply source.  To date, we have relied on the concept of a battery 'supplying' the juice - so to speak.  So.  What gives?  Our own proposal is that what we're accessing is the energy that holds atoms into coalesced matter.  You are all familiar with Einstein's E=Mc^2.  All that means is that there is energy in matter.  And the more matter, and the heavier and more complex the atoms - then the more energy.  But. Until our Dark Energy enthusiasts came along - there was no NEED to assume that that energy was in anything other than in the particles that formed those atoms that formed that coalesced material.  Now.  If one proposes, as we do, that the 'binding' of those fields - is achieved by magnetic strings - arranged along Faraday's Line's of Force, and that these fields distribute matter and in so doing - liberate exploitable energy - then we're still talking about the same thing.  Because the number of binding fields would relate precisely to the number of atoms bound.  The difference is this.  When that energy is 'released' in the form of work - then it would be released in 'discrete' parcels or packages.  And that, in turn, would comply with Planck's constant - h.  Then being essentially small magnets, each field would be able to reach through space and bind with proximate fields in proximate coalesced matter.  Which would resolve the Casimir effect.  And so the correspondences seem to correlate more and more to what is already known in the standard model.  Therefore, we do NOT, at any stage, either propose something that conflicts with what is observed - or conflicts with what has been deduced, thus far. 

However, when it comes to the actual measure of the amount of energy that seems to be available in conductive and inductive circuit material - then we're onto a new footing.  Because this has never been proposed - then it needs mathematical constructs.  And that is not within the capabilities of any of us collaborators.  But it would be a good thing to progress this.  Because, unarguably, there appears to be a valuable source of energy here that has been somewhat overlooked these past centuries or so.

But that was not the intention of reworking this thread.  What WAS intended was to show you that this protest that dogs my heels - in my efforts to make this knowledge Open Source, is founded on rather thin scientific justification.  And rather than debate anything at all - some rather heavy handed protesters presume to DECLARE that we have NOTHING and that this is all a waste of time.  It may well turn out to be so.  But that should not prevent our investigating it.  And I am NOT here talking about our own technology.  I'm talking about everyone on any of these forums who ALL work dilligently, and, in my case, somewhat obsessively, to explore new evidence - new lines of thought .  Only to find that our most earnest attempts seem to warrant a kind of abuse that would not even be appropriate if it would applied to known criminals, fraudsters and con artists.  What gives?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 02:51:50 PM
Which brings me back to my point.  Dear Poynty and Dear Professor Steven E Jones,

Kindly be advised that we have now circulated our papers to you both.  We have explained our applied protocols.  And we have shown evidence that we exceed unity.  You have not been able to provide us with cogent arguments against our methods of analysis.  We therefore conclude that you have none.  We would be very happy to give you a full demonstration of this - at a venue for you both to determine - and - provided that our measurements comply to those claimed in our paper - then we would be glad if you would kindly cough up.  I'm not sure of the value of that prize.  But it would be invaluable to just get you both to acknowledge over unity.  Because that way we could all move on,  somewhat more constructively - I might add, in these our endeavors.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 04:08:41 PM
My dear MileHigh,

>>Firstly, no electronics designer in their right mind would ever design a circuit that has the output from a MOSFET, the source pin, connected to the signal terminal of a function generator.  It makes no sense at all, it means you are trying to put current through the function generator.   The signal terminal of a function generator is supposed to connect to the gate input of a MOSFET.
AGREED

>>So lo and behold that's what your circuit does, it has current flowing through the function generator itself, which is totally bizarre and makes no sense.
IMPOSSIBLE FOR CURRENT TO FLOW THROUGH THE SIGNAL GENERATOR.  I've explained this. 

>>Notwithstanding what you did, let's say the signal generator swings between 0 volts and -5 volts.   That's of course because you add the negative offset to the signal generator output.
CORRECT

>>When the signal generator outputs 0 volts, Q1 is off and Q2 is off - no oscillation.
INDEED.  But when the signal is PERMANENTLY APPLIED - negative to Q1's Gate and positive to Q2's Gate - then the SIGNAL IS NOT OSCILLATING ANYWHERE AT ALL.

>>When the signal generator outputs -5 volts then Q1 is still off and Q2 switches on - the circuit oscillates
INDEED.  But then the current would need to move through the function generator's wires and come out at the mouth of the signal's terminal and OVERRIDE the negative applied signal at that point.  And because it can now IGNORE that negative signal at that terminal - then the batteries  would be able to discharge current from the battery without interruption and without obstruction.  And then there would be evidence of a current discharge greater than zero - CONTINUOUSLY.  No oscillation AT ALL.

>>The reason Q2 switches on is that the Q2 gate voltage is at 0 volts and the Q2 source pin is at - 5 volts.   Therefore the gate pin is at a higher potential than the source pin and the MOSFET switches on.   In other words, the gate pin is at +5 volts relative to the source pin and that makes the MOSFET switch on.
Again.  I AGREE.  This is standard.  But don't now try and argue that the current that is - in any event prevented from flowing from the battery - now comes out and starts flowing 'freely' notwithstanding the offset switch.  And not only that but it comes out in full force and overrides the applied signal from the signal terminal onto Q1's gate.  That's absurd. 

>>In reality, the MOSFET switches on for just a fraction of a second and then it switches off because the circuit conditions are such that it goes into spontaneous oscillation.
Very likely.  But that does not explain the source of the oscillation if that energy is NOT coming from the battery.

>>So, when the output of the signal generator goes low, the circuit oscillates, and current flows through the signal generator itself to complete the circuit.  It's a totally bizarre nonsensical design.  Nobody would ever design a circuit where current flows through the signal generator itself like your circuit does.  Your circuit is just an accidental miswiring of a MOSFET that results in oscillation.  The fact that it oscillates is not surprising at all.
I can't comment.  I only know that the oscillation is showing us a supply of energy that cannot possibly be coming from the battery.  Why are you so anxious to close this discussion with this your 'opinion'?  The more so as its based on improbable assumptions?  Do you feel that your knowledge is greater than that of our academics and therefore this does not need to be put to the academic forum?  Is that your concern?  Or are you anxious to assure us all that you've now dealt with these questions?  Because you haven't.  You really, really haven't.  You've barely touched the surface.  

>>And then you arrive at the "garbage-in garbage-out" part of the story.  The circuit is bizarre but still operates like any conventional circuit with respect to the energy dynamics.  You make "garbage in"  measurements and are fooled by what you see, and thus you arrive at a "garbage out" conclusion.
We make absolutely no measurements.  Some rather zut instruments do that for us.  If you're proposing that those measurements are garbage - then I'm afraid there is much in those specifications that prove you VERY WRONG INDEED.

Regards, as ever,
Rosemary

And MileHigh.  What do you then make of an oscillation that is enabled with the use of ONLY 1 MOSFET applied to a circuit with ONLY a negative signal applied to it's GATE.  That also induces PRECISELY the same oscillation.  That rules out every objection you've posed here.  Because that applied signal is NOT coming from a function generator.  And I've REPEATEDLY referred to this test and that evidence.  For some reason you and Poynty seem to need to IGNORE IT.

>>MILEHIGH
ME
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 04:40:10 PM
What do you then make of an oscillation that is enabled with the use of ONLY 1 MOSFET applied to a circuit with ONLY a negative signal applied to it's GATE.  That also induces PRECISELY the same oscillation.
I greatly expect this is another example of a misunderstanding of how the circuit is put together and how it is operating. I assure you, an N-channel MOSFET will not do anything (not even oscillate) with an applied negative VGS voltage.

Post the exact circuit diagram of this test and we'll be able to home in on your error. But most likely you won't, that's a predictable pattern you always seem to follow.

Quote
That rules out every objection you've posed here.  Because that applied signal is NOT coming from a function generator.  And I've REPEATEDLY referred to this test and that evidence.  For some reason you and Poynty seem to need to IGNORE IT.
That rules out nothing of the sort. You made no cogent argument at all, you've only put forth an opinion. If you have the gumption to post a diagram of the single MOSFET oscillator, then you have a starting point to prove the claim of that test is valid, otherwise it's only hearsay at this juncture.

Oh, and if you DO find the gumption to post that diagram, be sure to include exact settings of the FG as well.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 06:21:25 PM

Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

I am under NO obligation to provide anything to either of you short of what has already been provided.  What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.  In which case we qualify for your prize.  What we can CERTAINLY include in that demonstration - is the use of just one MOSFET without the application of a Function generator which we will demonstrate to produce that oscillation for the DURATION that a negative signal is applied to the gate of that transistor.

I think that I and your public would expect better courtesy from you both - Poynty for the RUDENESS of your address - and Professor for simply ignoring this claim of ours in its entirety.  It is an unfortunate approach in the light of my allegations that there are MOTIVES in denying our claim that have nothing to do with science.  We are happy to include that added experiment in our demonstration.

Regards
Rosemary

I greatly expect this is another example of a misunderstanding of how the circuit is put together and how it is operating. I assure you, an N-channel MOSFET will not do anything (not even oscillate) with an applied negative VGS voltage.

Post the exact circuit diagram of this test and we'll be able to home in on your error. But most likely you won't, that's a predictable pattern you always seem to follow.
That rules out nothing of the sort. You made no cogent argument at all, you've only put forth an opinion. If you have the gumption to post a diagram of the single MOSFET oscillator, then you have a starting point to prove the claim of that test is valid, otherwise it's only hearsay at this juncture.

Oh, and if you DO find the gumption to post that diagram, be sure to include exact settings of the FG as well.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 07:01:26 PM
Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

I am under NO obligation to provide anything to either of you short of what has already been provided.  What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.  In which case we qualify for your prize.  What we can CERTAINLY include in that demonstration - is the use of just one MOSFET without the application of a Function generator which we will demonstrate to produce that oscillation for the DURATION that a negative signal is applied to the gate of that transistor.

Dear Rosemary Ainslie,

I am under No obligation to afford you the OUR Award for which you have half-heartedly applied. Why? Your application does not meet the terms and conditions as outlined at OUR, nor does it provide convincing evidence of your claim. In fact, the evidence presented in the application supports the assertion that the measurements are erroneous.

Your circuit has been replicated with a computer simulation program called SPICE, for which it is impossible to obtain erroneous measurements of actual power used. Your measurement errors have been replicated in the program, and it has been explained in great detail how the measurement error was achieved. Furthermore, several measurements were given which support the fact that your measurement as submitted, exhibits not only the incorrect polarity, but incorrect amplitude as well.

Therefore, your persistence to demand award of any prize regarding your claim is simply futile. That you don't take to heart the damning evidence before you, is irrelevant; the circuit presented does NOT exhibit OU, nor COP=Infinity, nor any such notion....period!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 08:03:12 PM
My dear Poynt and Professor Jones,


I am under No obligation to afford you the OUR Award for which you have half-heartedly applied. Why? Your application does not meet the terms and conditions as outlined at OUR, nor does it provide convincing evidence of your claim. In fact, the evidence presented in the application supports the assertion that the measurements are erroneous.
There are collaborators associated with this claim that are better qualified than you and who are entirely in support of the evidence detailed in those papers.  Your objections are based on spurious assumption and bad science.  I will take the trouble to schedule that sorry list in due course.  Meanwhile I put on record that there has not been one single explanation forwarded that warrants any kind of valid rejection of our applied measurement protocols.  I put it to you that you are relying this disgusting parade of arrogance to compensate for your entire lack of scientific justification.  It is a transparent attempt at bluffing your way out of a corner.  If there was an ounce of sincerity in your search for proof of over unity - then you needs must defer your 'opinion' until the completion of a demonstration.  Else it is not science.  It is assumption.

Your circuit has been replicated with a computer simulation program called SPICE, for which it is impossible to obtain erroneous measurements of actual power used. Your measurement errors have been replicated in the program, and it has been explained in great detail how the measurement error was achieved. Furthermore, several measurements were given which support the fact that your measurement as submitted, exhibits not only the incorrect polarity, but incorrect amplitude as well.
You presume that yours is the only extant analysis of a computer simulation.  In this you are GROSSLY mistaken.  And the results that have been found DO NOT CONFORM to those that you allege.  Quite apart from which - we are not under any obligation to conform to any experimental results that are based on simulations.  It is the hard experimental evidence that will trump a simulation EVERY TIME. You are transparently 'scraping the barrel' in a rather reckless attempt to avoid confirmation.  And this because you know - more than most - that we will, inevitably PROVE OUR CLAIM.

Regards,
Rosemary

And I would add that our measurements carry the full authority of calibrated measuring instruments that cannot be questioned.  And at no stage have there been any misrepresentations in any of our results.  We could not possibly misrepresent them.  We could NOT possibly tamper with the data that is extrapolated by those fine instruments. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 08:23:19 PM
Your claim will NEVER be proven, I can guarantee that.

Now, I challenge ANY or ALL of your so-called experts, academics, scientists, college students, or what-have-you, to join with me in ANY venue of their choice to discuss your/their claim.

I am most certain none will take up the challenge, OR they simply will not be aware of my offer. Could you please pass it along?

Thanks.

Kindest regards, as always,

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 08:44:38 PM
Your claim will NEVER be proven, I can guarantee that.

Now, I challenge ANY or ALL of your so-called experts, academics, scientists, college students, or what-have-you, to join with me in ANY venue of their choice to discuss your/their claim.

I am most certain none will take up the challenge, OR they simply will not be aware of my offer. Could you please pass it along?

Thanks.

Kindest regards, as always,
.99

I am reasonably satisfied that not one of them would want to engage in a discussion with you.  It seems that you and your 'friends' have aired your opinions about their involvement with the same liberality as you apply to me, - variously describing them as my 'lap puppies' and 'morons' I seem to recall were some of the description used.  Sad evidence of a rather infantile mindset which would hardly interest their engagement. If these forums were healthy and respectful and inclined to genuine research - then I'm sure that there would be absolutely NO reluctance.  As it is there is not a one of them who engages here.  And I'm satisfied that there is nothing to alter that decision.

All we require - at this stage of our 'discussion' is an acknowledgement that our measurement protocols are correct and sufficient for proof of our claim - with or without that second test with the single FET and no function generator.  There is nothing else to discuss.

Regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 08:49:49 PM
Your claim will NEVER be proven, I can guarantee that.
With reference to this comment that our claim will NEVER be proven - it seems that if you are that satisfied then you would be most anxious to prove this in a demonstration of that test.  And I believe you've got your prize money staked on this.  We're rather anxious to separate you from that money Poynt.99.  You've been telling us all what we can and can't too for too long now - and with NO reference to the evidence that we've put on the table.

again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 09:14:05 PM
I suspect your 5 "experts" would not hesitate to engage if they could. The trouble is that none of them are qualified, and this explains why they won't.

If you are willing to wager your HOUSE on your claim, I would without hesitation wager my own. THEN I would consider going there to prove you wrong, and grab the keys. I wouldn't mind a nice little vacation spot in Cape Town.  :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 09:19:46 PM
I suspect your 5 "experts" would not hesitate to engage if they could. The trouble is that none of them are qualified, and this explains why they won't.
We have none of us lost sleep over your suspicions.  And I have NO INTENTION of wagering anything with you.  All that is at issue is that you determine our claim in the context of standard protocols and then we can all somehow convene a demonstration of the device.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 09:33:07 PM
And I have NO INTENTION of wagering anything with you.

That just goes to show Rosemary, how little confidence you have in your claim.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 09:37:08 PM
I think we'd all like to see the credentials of your so-called "experts" Rosemary. Please do indulge us.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 09:38:12 PM
That just goes to show Rosemary, how little confidence you have in your claim.
NOT AT ALL.  It proves how little confidence I have in your ethics.  I very much doubt that you'll ever negotiate a demonstration.  And I'm equally satisfied that with enough proof to drown in you'd deny the evidence.    All you need to do is prove me wrong.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 09:41:16 PM
I think we'd all like to see the credentials of your so-called "experts" Rosemary. Please do indulge us.
Frankly PoyntyPoint - I prefer it that you doubt my presentations.  Because when these things come to light - which they inevitably will - then that will be a sweet victory.  Meanwhile I enjoy seeing your public denials - your own rather sad and inappropriate disbelief aired with such incautious abandon.  It will come back to bite you.

Yet again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 09:46:09 PM
You're unwilling to wager anything, nor comply with any requests. Deny, deny deny, that's all you ever do.

You can't expect anyone to make concessions when you're unwilling to make any yourself, do you?

That's rather selfish and narcissistic don't you think?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 09:48:14 PM
Frankly PoyntyPoint - I prefer it that you doubt my presentations.  Because when these things come to light - which they inevitably will - then that will be a sweet victory.

Indeed it will. :) ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 30, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
Actually Poynty.  I see no further justification for this dialogue.  I won't be answering any more of your posts.  Not until there's a complete concession related to our applied measurement protocols.  That's all that's at issue.
 
 I'll now concentrate on concluding this thread - because I can see where this is going.  Which is nowhere.  And there's a few loose ends that I need to include here.  Then I'm done.
 
 Regards
 Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 30, 2012, 09:55:43 PM
Agreed, you're not doing well in this discussion, best throw in the towel before it gets worse.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 31, 2012, 12:19:16 AM
Hello again all,
Rosemary, I hope you don't consider me a loose end in this conversation but I'm inclined to agree with Poynt99 that you should maybe throw in the towel. You haven't really 'proven' to me that you have 'discovered' or 'invented' anything new.
I have to call BS for the following reasons:
You claim robust currents and voltage swings and also claim that your batteries don't discharge/recharge.
(Would love to see the video!)
Regarding your 'oscillation', you have a SIGNAL GENERATOR applying a signal (read voltage) to your circuit. Others have mentioned ways to take more reliable measurements without changing your circuit AT ALL yet you have refused to do so. They did this so that you could SEE where YOUR ERROR IN TAKING YOUR MEASUREMENTS are.
Beyond that...
You claim that your circuit is self-powering yet you can't disconnect the battery from it and keep it running. If you can't plug it into iself (after you get it running anyways), it is NOT OU!! If you can do that, why don't you do it? Some BS excuse that you have found all this 'dark power' that we can't use because of a strange scope oscillation?
I hate to say it Rosemary, but your 5th dimension dark yammerings discredit you as an experimentalist. Your continual refusal to employ other testing methods or to even entertain the possibility that (gasp!) maybe one or two of those people could actually KNOW the reason you're seeing that oscillation on your scope (besides YOUR interpretation).
And, forgive my bluntness a bit here Rosemary, but WHERE are the rest of the 'us' and 'our group' you keep referring to?
I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear from your collaborators. I just don't buy it.

Kindest regards,
PC
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 31, 2012, 02:10:35 AM
Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I can and will replicate and demonstrate your measurement. And just because I can, this does NOT "represent an overunity result". Once I proceed to demonstrate the CORRECT measurement, it will confirm that YOUR measurement is erroneous.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on January 31, 2012, 03:40:32 AM
Rosemary:

I didn't realise there was a time limit, so before you go, let me write a few things down.

I still think that you misunderstand classic theory.  I would love to know where you get your information, so I can read it for myself.

I have done a little research, and the books that I have read all say roughly the same thing about electron velocity.  In a copper wire at room temperature, the RMS velocity of the free electrons is about 117,000 meters per second.

Are you thinking about electron drift, which is much slower, and occurs when there is a dc electric current in the wire.  A 16 gauge wire (approximately 1.3 square millimeter area) carrying a steady direct (not AC) current of 10 amperes would have an electron drift velocity of roughly 0.4 millimeters per second, which is not very fast.

Lastly, I would like to ask: Do you really think scientists over the last 200 years have not been able to come up with a theory that explains observed behavior, such as NOT taking 30 minutes for a light bulb to turn on, or a power station NOT running out of electrons?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 31, 2012, 06:26:52 AM
Hello Derrick,
... but I'm inclined to agree with Poynt99 that you should maybe throw in the towel. You haven't really 'proven' to me that you have 'discovered' or 'invented' anything new.
Yes.  I see your point.  If I don't convince either of you that we have a claim for Poynty's prize money - then, we really should, as you propose 'throw in the towel'.  Cease and desist.  Own up to defeat.  It makes very good sense.  Especially as there seems to be no point in relying on mere experimental evidence to prove well argued measurements and results.  Science should, in terms of your proposal here - be determined by your opinion and Poynty's opinion.  I'll consider that proposal very carefully.  Certainly - on the face of it - you both appear to constitute a representative majority.  And as the claim is essentially frivolous - with no possible value to society in general - then - no doubt - I'm rather imposing on your good time. 
 
I have to call BS for the following reasons:
You claim robust currents and voltage swings and also claim that your batteries don't discharge/recharge. (Would love to see the video!)
If you could be satisfied by the evidence of a video on this then you'd be unique amongst our forum members.  When, in the history of these forums, has any video satisfied anyone at all - of experimental evidence of over unity?  If you could advance just 1 example where this has satisfied the criteria for a claim - then I will gladly release a half hour run - which would be time enough to include all 4 examples that are included in our paper.   

Regarding your 'oscillation', you have a SIGNAL GENERATOR applying a signal (read voltage) to your circuit. Others have mentioned ways to take more reliable measurements without changing your circuit AT ALL yet you have refused to do so.
WHAT?  If you're trying to make me believe this then I'd need to ignore those multiple proposals where I continue to test irrelevant criteria into perpetuity.  I assure you that EVERY RELEVANT proposal of a test variation - has ALSO been tested.

They did this so that you could SEE where YOUR ERROR IN TAKING YOUR MEASUREMENTS are.
You're generalising Derrick.  Rather broadly I might add.  And those 'errors' that you reference are based on WHAT?  Poynty's unique proposal to simply invert our probes?   He's right.  That would iNDEED - upend our argument.  That would 'cut it'.  So would his extraordinary corruptions of the standard measurement protocols that he applied rather recklessly to that 'paper' of his - as he refers to it.

Beyond that...
You claim that your circuit is self-powering yet you can't disconnect the battery from it and keep it running. If you can't plug it into iself (after you get it running anyways), it is NOT OU!! If you can do that, why don't you do it? Some BS excuse that you have found all this 'dark power' that we can't use because of a strange scope oscillation?
BS?  Derrick?  That's strong language.  And what 'strange scope oscillation?  Do you even know what you're talking about?  Dear God.  If this is the level of counter argument then I'm wasting my time.  What you're proposing would require pure magic.  I keep saying this.  We are NOT magicians.  No-one in the history of science - has ever been able to separate a current from its source and managed to keep it flowing into perpetuity.  It would require properties in matter - that no scientist would ever seriously propose.  Not even if that current flow comprised electrons. 

I hate to say it Rosemary, but your 5th dimension dark yammerings discredit you as an experimentalist.
I see this now.   To propose a thesis that conforms to the standard model - yet extends it - is 'yammering' - IF it is also accompanied by the FOLLY of experimental evidence as PROOF of that thesis.  To use mere experimental proof to determine a thesis would most certainly therefore CORRUPT science.  What was I thinking? 

Your continual refusal to employ other testing methods or to even entertain the possibility that (gasp!) maybe one or two of those people could actually KNOW the reason you're seeing that oscillation on your scope (besides YOUR interpretation).
I do not have an interpretation.  Established scientific measurement protocols establish that interpretation for me.

And, forgive my bluntness a bit here Rosemary,...
Not sure if you're asking that I forgive only some of your bluntness - or or that I must only partially forgive you.  Either way.  There's nothing to forgive.  Your input has been invaluable. On many levels.  But probably not as you intended.

but WHERE are the rest of the 'us' and 'our group' you keep referring to?
They're here in South Africa.

I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear from your collaborators. I just don't buy it.
This is extraordinary.  What don't you buy?  That there are any?  Are you seriously proposing that I've 'invented' them?

Let me explain why they don't engage.  Derrick - there is no greater cesspool - than these forums.  It is corrupted - from inception - when 'anonymous' posters propose that anything they say - could ever be taken seriously.  In general - one is accountable for what one says.   It is the measure of a man.  If he claims something - then he 'stands up to and makes that claim' PUBLIC.  Exactly where do any of those anonymous 'posters' that HOWL their objections in the wake of our claim - WHEN DO THEY EVER OWN UP TO THEIR IDENTITIES?  Therefore they are NOT accountable.  Therefore they can say anything.  The abuse of these forums will be perpetuated while those who subscribe are reluctant to both OWN UP TO WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR.  It is EXTRAORDINARY.  Who cares what an anonymous anybody THINKS?  It's IRRELEVANT.  And it is ENTIRELY irrelevant what any member thinks - until they are prepared to STAND UP and claim it.  They don't.  They're cowards.  When forums are conducted on the basis of complete exposure of those engaging in any discussion - is REQUIRED - then you may see the level of debate and the quality of the discourse IMPROVE BEYOND RECOGNITION. 

My ONLY interest in promoting anything at all on these forums is because I am aware of a silent readership who engage on an ENTIRELY different level.  And it is that for that readership that I write.  Trust me on this. 

Kindest regards as ever
Rosie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 31, 2012, 06:51:10 AM
Rosemary:

I didn't realise there was a time limit, so before you go, let me write a few things down.

I still think that you misunderstand classic theory.  I would love to know where you get your information, so I can read it for myself.

I have done a little research, and the books that I have read all say roughly the same thing about electron velocity.  In a copper wire at room temperature, the RMS velocity of the free electrons is about 117,000 meters per second.

Are you thinking about electron drift, which is much slower, and occurs when there is a dc electric current in the wire.  A 16 gauge wire (approximately 1.3 square millimeter area) carrying a steady direct (not AC) current of 10 amperes would have an electron drift velocity of roughly 0.4 millimeters per second, which is not very fast.

Lastly, I would like to ask: Do you really think scientists over the last 200 years have not been able to come up with a theory that explains observed behavior, such as NOT taking 30 minutes for a light bulb to turn on, or a power station NOT running out of electrons?

Bubba - I nearly missed this post.  Regarding the imposition of an electron as the 'carrier particle' of current flow - I ASSURE YOU - this is only a 'model' - or a 'concept'.  It has NEVER been proved. The interaction of one valence electron with another valence electron - as the transfer of energy - through copper wire - is a velocity that is KNOWN.  And that would take considerably more time than instantaneous - which is what we see when we flick a light switch.  The argument that the transfer of current is based on this interaction between valence electrons is THE ONLY ARGUMENT that would wash as a COMPLETE explanation.  Because it would NOT then require the evidence of spare electrons in any circuitry - WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND.  It is the lack of evidence of electrons that is the baffling factor.  And the need of so many that our grid supplies would never be able to supply the required amount to keep our cities lit - our houses warmed.  The question is - WHERE ARE ALL THOSE ELECTRONS?  Because the concept of current flow being the flow of electrons NEEDS ALL THOSE ELECTRONS.  The general rule is that electrons are housed inside or near to their atoms.  They don't float around the place.  There aren't any 'spare' electrons.  They are always FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR.

But Bubba - it's irrelevant what you or I think.  What's relevant is the experimental evidence.  That's really the only science that counts.  And our experiments seem to show that we don't need electrons to account for current flow.

Kindest regards Bubba - I've always enjoyed your input.  Even though we disagree.  And especially since your knowledge of power engineering has much that I can learn from.

Rosemary

Edited punctuation.  And grammer
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 31, 2012, 07:14:12 AM
And MileHigh,

Provided only that you conceded that IF THERE ARE NO MISREADINGS and ERROR MEASUREMENTS - then our claim STANDS - then I'm happy.  A simple demonstration of this would then be all that's required.  Then we could all be happy.

You are trying to second guess what CANNOT be second guessed.  It needs hands on exposure and evaluation.  Why the HELL do you think that we're trying to get this to the academic forum?  It's precisely because all that precious evidence will be TRASHED if its survival depended on the 'opinion' of anonymous posters of dubious skills who are happy to DISMISS whatever they like - with or without an agenda and on grounds that have nothing to do with standard measurement protocols.

Science CAN ONLY BE PROGRESSED THROUGH EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  That's all that matters.  And MileHigh - you need to drop that argument of yours that the current from the battery is flowing through the functions generator.  I'm hoping - soon - to get you a full comment from a technical expert who designs those machines.  Pro temp - I assure you that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

And thanks for your input.  I mean that most sincerely.  It all helps the cause. 
Kindest as ever,
Rosie   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on January 31, 2012, 02:34:16 PM
And MileHigh - you need to drop that argument of yours that the current from the battery is flowing through the functions generator.  - I assure you that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

It is NOT impossible. It DEPENDS on the mode of operation. I alluded to the fact that the circuit can be operated in two slightly different modes; mode1 where Q2 is active, and Q1 not, and mode2 where Q1 is active and Q2 not. Mode1 is achieved by using a -5V to 0V pulse train on the FG, and mode2 by using a 0V to +5V pulse train on the FG.

IF the device is operated in mode2, (0V to +5V pulse, Q1 is active) then in fact the established current path is through the Q1 Source, and NOT the FG. The oscillation occurs when the FG is HI, or at +5V.

Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper. It's clearly stated that a NEGATIVE offset is used in the FG (mode1), but when FIG.'s 3 and 5 are examined, it is clear that about +8V is measured on the Q1 Gate in both, which means mode2 was actually used for the test.

In this case, the FG would not be providing that path, the path is through the Q1 Source when it is ON. BUT THERE IS A PATH ROSEMARY! It's through the Q1-S.  ::)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 31, 2012, 03:23:24 PM
May I propose that you just take a deep breath and LOOK AGAIN.  Take a look at the level of current enabled during the ON TIME of the duty cycle - when the applied signal at the gate of Q1 is POSITIVE and current flow is - under normal circumstances ENABLED.  For 18 seconds of each 180 seconds or thereby of each of those switching cycles - a positive signal is applied at the Gate of Q1.  During this time, notwithstanding the application of that positive signal, there is no current flow from the battery supply.  Here you need to refer to the Channel 1 (ORANGE TRACE) and look where at the current sits.  IT'S AT ZERO.  Again.  during this period when the applied signal is POSITIVE which would enable the flow of current - THERE IS NO CURRENT FLOW FROM THE BATTERY.  Therefore the 'offset' setting is doing what it was meant to do.

Fig5 is a different kettle of fish.  An entirely different test.  Here the offset was adjusted to enable the flow of current during that 'on' period of each duty cycle.  Nothing surprising.  When the signal's applied it is INTENDED to ENABLE a short period of current flow from the battery.  This increases the level of dissipation at the element resistor.  Predictably.

I'll deal with the details in your post after this.
Rosemary

I'll try and download those screenshots.  WHY DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS?  WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT?  This is absolutely NOT the level of engagement that I expected.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on January 31, 2012, 04:40:43 PM
Rosemary,
 You are indeed correct in that I don't really know what I'm referring to regarding your 'oscillation' so I respectfully withdraw from this conversation.
I agree, I am NOT qualified to argue how your circuit works (or why it works a certain way or why you have your 'oscillation').
There are others here who ARE qualified to do so. In trying to satisfy my curiosity, it seems I have reiterated Poynt99s 'point'. 
 I will say that there were certain parts of your paper that sparked my imagination, and some things actually made a decent amount of sense. I liked your little drawings! :)
My statements about being blunt or rude were intended to convey that I hold no animosity or ill-will towards you (or anyone else here). Believe me, my posting was made after MORE research, NOT just taking someones word for it...
I see a stubborn person who refuses to accept (from any direction) that she just might be wrong.
I agree with you that forums like these can become a 'sesspool' at times, but I also think that there are those who frequent these places (like myself) who are curious about what is going on in the experimentalist/hobbyist/researcher/etc world and are looking around to find others with similar interests. 
I don't have a Ph.D. or M.A. (apparently you don't either) so how much am I (or you?) likely to be listened to in those 'other' more 'legitimate' types of discussion groups?? Certainly not as an equal. Since I don't have your expertise in electronics, I wouldn't consider myself your 'equal' so why would you deem listen to me, an uninformed observer in this one? I concede.
From your point of view we're all 'uninformed' when it comes to your circuit and your testing methods and your 'results'. Let's meet your colleagues and see your videos! I'm game. If they 'believe' in your results then they shouldn't have any fear of 'coming out' here... Lame excuse for no other 'collaborators' posting here...
So, as much as I'd like to repeat myself (like everyone else here apparently) ad nauseum, I will keep reading (and laughing) and learning, I will keep building and experimenting, and I will keep posting.
Just not on this particular thread.

Cheers!
Derrick
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on February 01, 2012, 02:31:51 AM

... And grammer

"grammer"?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on February 01, 2012, 02:37:16 AM
...The interaction of one valence electron with another valence electron - as the transfer of energy - through copper wire - is a velocity that is KNOWN.  And that would take considerably more time than instantaneous - which is what we see when we flick a light switch... 

Rosemary:  again, where are you getting this information that I would like to read for myself?

Bubba
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 02:54:23 AM
Rosemary:  again, where are you getting this information that I would like to read for myself?

Bubba

What information do you want to read for yourself Bubba?  Read anything and everything related to physics written for the layman, in some cases even written by our acknowledged leaders in science including Murray Gell-Mann and Hawking.  There is a wealth of informative literature where science is explained 'conceptually' - including Dyson and my particular favourite - Zukov.  But there are MANY such.  The difference between this and technical literature is only that they use simple language as opposed to mathematics - to EXPLAIN - the foundational concepts.  Which, I might add, is apparently and sorely lacking in the standard teaching curriculum of electrical engineers. 

But may I add.  I have NEVER read the proposal that a magnetic field may comprise particles.  So if that's what you're hoping to find - then you'll be disappointed.  I have proposed this - without any authority as there are absolutely no citations.

But if you want to 'skip' all that reading - just ask any theoretical physicist.  One out of every 10 will assure you that current flow is the flow of CHARGE.  Which it is.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary.
And thank you for alerting me to my spelling error.  But I'll pass on re-editing the edit.

Added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 03:53:10 AM
Derrick,


I agree, I am NOT qualified to argue how your circuit works (or why it works a certain way or why you have your 'oscillation').
There are others here who ARE qualified to do so.

If there are such, here on our forums - THEN WHERE ARE THEY?   ::) Poynty is trying to argue this without any reference to standard measurement protocols.  I still can't decide if this is deliberate.  MileHigh is in the dizzy distance - trying to find some kind of inspiration from the upper reaches of outer space.  TK occasionally comes to the party advertising his youtube nonsense.  And in the background lurks our Professor Steven E Jones who now, rather confusingly, uses the pseudonym Poynt.99  :o   Gravock also appears every now and then to offer some lonely  'applause' to Poynty's contribution.  They all advise me that my ignorance is abysmal based on an entire want of intellect and reason. And while all and sundry are advising all and sundry that I don't understand basic electrical engineering -  the only thing that rings out loud and clear is that - not only DO I understand it - but that I understand it rather better than themselves.

And then - to cap their argument - which is based not on logic, not on the standard model - not even on standard measurement protocols - but based on CONSENSUS - they seriously propose that I cease and desist.  It now seems that their authority comes in the guise of 'majority vote'.  And that enfranchisement needs nothing more than forum membership.  But that forum membership comprises, for the most part - a whole lot of anonymous people who avoid all accountability by NEVER disclosing their identities.  Which means that they are entirely unaccountable for the gross extent of traducements that they liberally, and somewhat incautiously, APPLY.  And for the first time in the history of science - it is earnestly suggested that we determine our paradigms on democratic rather than scientific principles.  Which would be wonderful.  And since I'm then widely advertised as a kook and a half wit - then they/you/all of them - ASSUME the further right to insult me and trash our technology - to their heart's content while they 'vote' no.

I wish I could find it in me to endorse any part of this.  I am left with the options of ignoring it or confronting it.  I've tried ignoring it.  But it seems that WHEN I do they then use those same tactics - that I am now intimately familiar with - on other poor and unsuspecting claimants.  Never will simple evidence 'cut it'.  All must be prejudged and DISMISSED.  Not only that but even when I'm 'not around' I get trashed on a purely personal level by these same talking heads - who offer a quality of abuse that - under normal conditions - would be actionable.  But they're NOT accountable.  They DO NOT POST UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES.  That way - they can say what they like.  And they can indulge this disgusting romp into hate speech - to their heart's content.  I've actually had enough.  I intend seeing this through to its conclusion.  I've had a belly full Derrick.  This has all be excessively abusive.  If I felt there was no merit in this technology I"d have folded - long back.  But I'm in the unhappy position of knowing the harm that they do - the utterly unsubstantiated bases of their arguments - and, very likely - the agenda that motivates it.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 04:34:07 AM
It is NOT impossible. It DEPENDS on the mode of operation. I alluded to the fact that the circuit can be operated in two slightly different modes; mode1 where Q2 is active, and Q1 not, and mode2 where Q1 is active and Q2 not. Mode1 is achieved by using a -5V to 0V pulse train on the FG, and mode2 by using a 0V to +5V pulse train on the FG.

IF the device is operated in mode2, (0V to +5V pulse, Q1 is active) then in fact the established current path is through the Q1 Source, and NOT the FG. The oscillation occurs when the FG is HI, or at +5V.

Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper. It's clearly stated that a NEGATIVE offset is used in the FG (mode1), but when FIG.'s 3 and 5 are examined, it is clear that about +8V is measured on the Q1 Gate in both, which means mode2 was actually used for the test.

In this case, the FG would not be providing that path, the path is through the Q1 Source when it is ON. BUT THERE IS A PATH ROSEMARY! It's through the Q1-S.  ::)

Now - with respect to this post of Poynt's. I posted my argument against - yesterday afternoon.  Immediately thereafter Harti's system when into loop mode - and again, I was not able to complete my reply.

Since it's now the focus of my topic - I've taken the trouble to highlight Poynty's post.  Here's what I refer to...'Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper.' 

Poynty Point.  You state this as a FACT.  Anyone reading here will ASSUME that you know what you're talking about.  Therefore the ASSUMPTION will be made that there ARE indeed CONFUSIONS and ERRORS with that paper.  When in truth - the CONFUSIONS and ERRORS are your own making.  I do not know if this is deliberate.  I only know that what you have just stated is both DAMAGING AND WRONG and it is applied to the hard work of skilled engineers - myself excepted.  I would recommend that you learn a modicum of discretion PoyntyPoint.  Or we'll all start thinking that you're trying to spread the general impression - YET AGAIN - that the Paper ERRS or, alternatively that  the data referenced ERRS  - when, in fact, it's your presentation and interpretation of that data that not only ERRS but is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 07:01:55 AM
Now - back to PhiChaser's post and to continue/...

I see a stubborn person who refuses to accept (from any direction) that she just might be wrong.
As it relates to the 'thesis' I freely confess that I may be wrong.  As it relates to the experimental evidence - the question as to my being 'right' or 'wrong' does not come into the equation.  We have experimental proof, clear evidence, supported by close analysis, from more than 500 data dumps - that WE EXCEED UNITY.  The proof is in the continual measure of more energy computed to have been returned and dissipated over a circuit than was EVER DELIVERED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  No-one can idly CLAIM that we've 'made a measurement's error'.  IMPOSSIBLE.  Our measuring equipment is top of the range. Our protocols are MORE THAN ADEQUATE.  And the level of energy being measured is NOT MARGINAL.  No ambivalence.  No ambiguities.  It is simply NOT that small that it could be debated in any context at all.

What you're actually 'buying into' is the ASSUMPTION that we've made an error in our analysis.  Certainly.  IF we were applying those absurd proposals of PoyntyPoint - that we compute the negative voltage measured across the inductive components of the circuit (including the element resistor) while the battery is in the process of discharging a current flow through a closed circuit - THEN YOU WOULD BE RIGHT.  Alternatively, if you are proposing that anything up to and including the flow of 5 amps of current from the battery supply can breach more than of 1000K's of resistance in the signal generator to present itself at the signal terminal and then ALSO - simply IGNORE the applied negative signal at that terminal - AGAIN.  YOU'D BE RIGHT.  Alternatively, if you proposed that my eyesight is that poor that I'm 'misreading' the results - and that our LeCroy scope shots are sharing my MYOPIA - AGAIN.  YOU'D BE RIGHT. 

HOWEVER.  Those arguments - are ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS - AND ERRONEOUS.  They have considerably less to do with science than than they have with 'agendas'.  I do NOT know what that agenda is.  But back to my point.  IF it appears that I am STUBBORN when I insist that the results need to be properly CONSIDERED - then I have the full weight of the entire field of science - behind me.  Because those measurements FLY IN THE FACE of what SCIENCE TEACHES US.  If you prefer it that I simply 'fold' and 'go away' which is clearly the preferred option here - then I would need to do this DESPITE the CRYING NEED for some critical evaluation OF THOSE RESULTS.  So.  Forgive what you seem to consider is my 'stubborn' nature.  I am simply trying to progress some rather controversial evidence.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: energy1234hope on February 01, 2012, 07:04:14 AM
give them heaps rosie all the best with the so called experts. The ones like milehigh who was an expert on everything and was just booted off the iaec forum for his comments that he thinks are right and no one else can be right unless they agree with him.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 07:23:06 AM
give them heaps rosie all the best with the so called experts. The ones like milehigh who was an expert on everything and was just booted off the iaec forum for his comments that he thinks are right and no one else can be right unless they agree with him.
Thanks for this.  MUCH APPRECIATED.  It's lonely on this front.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
So.  Ever onwards/...

I agree with you that forums like these can become a 'sesspool' at times, but I also think that there are those who frequent these places (like myself) who are curious about what is going on in the experimentalist/hobbyist/researcher/etc world and are looking around to find others with similar interests.
If your interests do not also include an interest in over unity then I'd suggest that you're at the wrong forum.  If however, they DO include an interest in over unity, then I recommend you do not dismiss evidence of this based on spurious analysis by what appears to be competing interests.
 
I don't have a Ph.D. or M.A. (apparently you don't either) so how much am I (or you?) likely to be listened to in those 'other' more 'legitimate' types of discussion groups??
There is NOTHING to preclude anyone in the whole wide world from presenting any argument related to science that is based on careful measurement and that has the further merit of supporting the required evidence of a thesis.  This INCLUDES reviewed journals, technical journals AND THESE FORUMS.  There is NO REQUIREMENT ANYWHERE THAT ONE HAS A MASTERS DEGREE OR AN HONOURS DEGREE OR ANY CREDENTIALS AT ALL.  ALL that's required is the CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THE ARGUMENT with ADEQUATELY DEFINED TERMS in the description of that argument and UNAMBIGUOUS RESULTS in proof of that argument.  Our field of science is that NOBLE that it knows better than to DEFER to CREDENTIALS.  They are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO SCIENCE.  What credentials show is PROOF of expertise.  Nothing else.

So when you say...
Certainly not as an equal. Since I don't have your expertise in electronics, I wouldn't consider myself your 'equal' so why would you deem listen to me, an uninformed observer in this one? I concede.
then you are WRONG.  Equality has NOTHING to do with CREDENTIALS.  EQUALITY IS ESTABLISHED the minute you are mortal, able to express yourself in a language, and when you have some nominal access to the faculties of logic.  Since all of these TALENTS relate to our BIRTHRIGHT - and since they're shared with billions of us mere mortals on this planet, then INDEED.  We are all WELL ABLE to consider ANYTHING WE WANT up to and including MATTERS RELATED TO SCIENCE.  It is a sad truth that there are those who presume that what they think has no relevance.  Frankly I think we all need to take on the responsibility of exercising our logic.  It is NOT the exclusive property of scientific experts or philosophical experts - for that matter.  It only matters that one ENGAGES.  Else why did God bother to give us our rather SLOWLY EVOLVING brains?  Makes no sense.  Certainly not if we just leave it to others to think for us.  Look at where this has landed us?  For God's sake.  And that because we PRESUMED that our scientists know everything that was left to know about science.  Somehow the 'door was shut' after QED?  I don't think so.
   
Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 08:20:43 AM
From your point of view we're all 'uninformed' when it comes to your circuit and your testing methods and your 'results'. Let's meet your colleagues and see your videos! I'm game. If they 'believe' in your results then they shouldn't have any fear of 'coming out' here... Lame excuse for no other 'collaborators' posting here...
NOW.  LET ME PUT THIS TO BED.  We know your name is Derrick.  I do not know where you live and I do NOT know what your work is - NOTHING.  Nor do I know PoyntyPoint's.  Nor do I know MileHighs, nor Gravock, nor TK, nor exnihloest - and on and on.  There's someone called 'the boss'.  There's another called Mookie.  (Actually I DO know who he is).  And so it goes.  OUR DEDICATED detractors.  They say EXACTLY what they want - oceans of unsubstantiated ALLEGATION - with ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO REFER TO FACT - and this little group have attempted to ASSASSINATE - NOT ONLY the technology - BUT MY GOOD NAME.

Well.  The truth is this.  MY name doesn't really matter.  It doesn't help that they set the stage and teach YOU, for example, how to refer to my work as BS and my thinking as 'TWADDLE'.  Obviously.  But it doesn't impact on my 'livelihood'.  If they were to try and do that with any of our collaborators then there's a real chance that those collaborators would find themselves unemployable.  In the light of this, are you SERIOUSLY proposing that they engage?  When you and I BOTH know what happens to people when the come out in support of a CLAIM?  Just cast your mind back to what happened to Fleischmann and Pons. Those poor men were relegated to ignominy as a result of their efforts.  I WOULD NEVER ask it of them.  That they come and fight this fight on a forum? Which is DOMINATED by anything but science?  Where reputation and opinion matters more than experimental evidence?  And there's NO NEED.  Those rather despicable attempts at cannibalizing on my blasted reputation - would then be more widely spread as they added a few more to that feast.  Bear in mind Derrick, that this is a FIRST.  And it is also for the first time in the history of these forums that ANYONE has challenged Poynty and his 'friends' to support their argument with LOGIC.  The usual diet - stops when they CONCUR that the claimant is a moron.  Easily done.  But as in war.  It is usually better NOT to underestimate the strength of the enemy.  And I suspect that they finally managed to also fondly believe their expressed opinions.  Which is actually quite amusing.

What I've hoped to do - for once and for all - is to show proof that ACTUALLY - we claimants are NOT deluded, NOT inarticulate and NOT illogical.  And, more to the point, our claims are scientifically VALID.

Which I think covers your entire post.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
   
Added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 02:18:59 PM
And MileHigh - this is all that I have to say about your latest objections.  My knowledge of electronics is abysmal.  My knowledge of conceptual physics is more than adequate.  You have all ASSUMED that because I am not au fait with electronics - then I know NOTHING.  That, like so many other bigoted assumptions that you all indulge - is what it is. PURE ASSUMPTION.  I have a video'd example of a HIGHLY QUALIFIED NUCLEAR PHYSICIST who was ENTIRELY unable to distinguish between a circuit that included a 555 switching schematic - and one that did not. That does not make him stupid or less of an expert - BUT IN HIS OWN FIELD.

And may I add - that any advance of 'field physics' will rely ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on 'concept'.  It's an art in the making.  It is most certainly NOT an established branch of physics.  And, thankfully, it has not, thereby, been corrupted by ASSUMPTIONS that DOG both QED and Relativity.  And it is PERFECTLY developed by our string theorists.  But they're ALSO LOOKING for that particle.

So.  Do NOT try and patronise me.  And kindly refrain from advising the entire world that current can come from the battery and somehow flow through the circuitry of a function generator.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  I am awaiting a detailed account of WHY this is impossible from a TECHNICAL EXPERT.  With his permission I will then post that explanation here.  The ONLY thing that may POSSIBLY be managed is that current will flow between the signal terminal and its ground.  And that CANNOT happen if the applied signal does not correspond with the applied current from the supply - WHATEVER IT IS.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 02:28:52 PM
Alternatively, if you are proposing that anything up to and including the flow of 5 amps of current from the battery supply can breach more than of 1000K's of resistance in the signal generator to present itself at the signal terminal and then ALSO - simply IGNORE the applied negative signal at that terminal - AGAIN. YOU'D BE RIGHT.

There are no "1000k's of resistance" looking into the output port of the FG. In fact it is a mere 50 Ohms. If you would like, I can post a schematic of the output portion of that FG which clearly shows 50 Ohms of resistance on its output. So from there, the AC impedance to ground is quite low; on the order of 0.1 Ohms. So the total AC impedance to the ground terminal of the FG is about 50 Ohms, looking in to the output. This AC impedance to ground is the path for the oscillation.

And Rosemary, stop harping on the notion that ANYONE is accusing the instruments of failing to measure correctly; you've been advised several times that it is NOT the instruments that are at fault, it is the operators of the instrument.

Now, let's put to bed this issue of the oscillation and which MOSFET is responsible. The only salient issue is that there IS an oscillation, we can all agree on that. HOW that oscillation is achieved is not important. You've even said it yourself, normally this type of oscillation is an annoyance to designers, and it is to be avoided. So it is not a novel discovery of any sort, MOSFETs are notorious for oscillating, especially when operated in their linear range.

The thrust of the problem is HOW you made your battery voltage measurement. Specifically, WHERE you placed the scope probe. It is NOT correct. That's been clearly proven several times. Now, you say that you tried a scope measurement with a probe much closer to the batteries, and still found significant oscillation on the display. When you did this, did you at the same time remove ALL the other probes that were still on the circuit?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 02:57:33 PM
Poynt.99

HOW you have the bald faced temerity to advise ME or anyone at all - that our probes are POSITIONED incorrectly - when we HAVE shown you that the position of those probes CAN BE PLACED PRECISELY ON THE BATTERY TERMINALS - THAT IT MAKES NOT ONE IOTA OF DIFFERENCE TO THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THAT OSCILLATION.  We have done downloads of this THIS VERY POINT.  And I've explained that we can prove this on a circuit that ONLY has one MOSFET and ONLY one battery with the probes AGAIN positioned - this time on the one and only battery used as a supply source.

Is this all it takes?  To promote a disinformation program?  IGNORE the counter arguments - IGNORE the proof - IGNORE the statements - and just keep on and on and on - plugging the same RIDICULOUS points - where the sheer repetition will eventually carry the argument? I absolutely WILL NOT ANSWER ANOTHER POST THAT RELATES TO THESE OBJECTIONS.  It is impossible to keep on keeping on saying the same thing.  I've just taken a look back on this thread.  I've been saying this for the last 5 pages - possibly more.


FINALLY.  It is impossible to 'draw the wrong conclusions' from those instruments as you are trying to imply. UNLESS the probes are  inappropriately attenuated or unless they were incorrectly positioned.  AND THEY ARE NOT.   One does not need to get a degree in electronics in order to find out how to work those oscilloscopes.  They're USER FRIENDLY.  Quite apart from which you are also supposing that NONE OF THE COLLABORATORS are competent to take a measurement.  And that falls into the category of traducement and slander.  I AM DONE WITH ARGUING THIS.

Rosemary

EDITED
I removed that rant that is due to get an EXPERT's comment related to the proposed corruption that is enabled by the signal probe.   The rest of this post stands.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 03:15:59 PM
Now, Poynt.99 and Professor Steven E Jones,

A simple demonstration of this technology is actually all that is required to prove what we here CLAIM.  We are MORE THAN HAPPY to include the test where we generate the oscillation with the use of only 1 MOSFET and only 1 battery.  That puts the objection to bed related to the positioning of those oscilloscope probes - and this rather outlandish claim where you seem to think that the battery supply is able to chase it's tail through an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.

Let me know your thoughts related to a demonstration.  Subject only to this, and to the time required to get these tests up and running and the time when the collaborators would be available - then we're ready to roll.  I think a month from today would be a realistic target.
 
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 03:56:56 PM
Poynt.

Here is a detail of what is happening at the signal terminal of the function generator - during the period that the circuit if OPEN.  Kindly NOTE that the blue trace is the ACTUAL APPLIED VOLTAGE AT BOTH THE SIGNAL TERMINAL AND ITS GROUND.  Where is there any evidence here that this voltage is able to support the flow of upwards of 5 amps.  Because that blue trace DETAIL waveform is evident in EVERY SINGLE OSCILLATION - no matter the setting.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 05:07:56 PM
You've not answered this salient question:
 
You say that you tried a scope measurement with a probe much closer to the batteries, and still found significant oscillation on the display. When you did this, did you at the same time remove ALL the other probes that were still on the circuit?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 05:14:32 PM
You've not answered this salient question:
 
You say that you tried a scope measurement with a probe much closer to the batteries, and still found significant oscillation on the display. When you did this, did you at the same time remove ALL the other probes that were still on the circuit?

As I said.  Just propose a reasonable venue for a demonstration.  And when.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 05:25:49 PM
As I said.  Just propose a reasonable venue for a demonstration.  And when.

Rosemary

Just answer the simple question please. Why do you insist on playing games?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 07:03:15 PM

Just answer the simple question please. Why do you insist on playing games?

No point in answering any more questions.  I'm not playing games.  There's no question that a short 30 minute demonstration would not iron out. If you won't discuss this, and since Professor discusses NOTHING - I take it that you are not prepared to go this route?  Kindly confirm.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 07:17:22 PM
The question requires only a "YES" or "NO" answer from you. A live demosntration is not necessary to answer this question.
 
YES, you ARE playing games Rosemary....do you think the 3 readers here don't see this?
 
Tell you what; Why don't YOU fly to my location in Canada with your apparatus, and I'll test it under your supervision. If the unit tests out to be OU or COP>1, then I will reimburse your flights, AND award the prize to you and your "experts".
 
Agreed?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 07:26:03 PM
My dear Poynty Point,

WITH PLEASURE.  NOW we can move on.

DO YOU AGREE THAT THE APPLIED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS ARE CORRECT

DO YOU AGREE THAT SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THOSE RESULTS THAT YOU WILL CONCEDE THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED AN ENERGY TRANSFER THAT IS GREATER THAN ZERO?

Regards,
Rosemary

The question requires only a "YES" or "NO" answer from you. A live demosntration is not necessary to answer this question.
 
YES, you ARE playing games Rosemary....do you think the 3 readers here don't see this?
 
Tell you what; Why don't YOU fly to my location in Canada with your apparatus, and I'll test it under your supervision. If the unit tests out to be OU or COP>1, then I will reimburse your flights, AND award the prize to you and your "experts".
 
Agreed?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 07:45:58 PM
My dear Poynty Point,

WITH PLEASURE.  NOW we can move on.

DO YOU AGREE THAT THE APPLIED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS ARE CORRECT

DO YOU AGREE THAT SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THOSE RESULTS THAT YOU WILL CONCEDE THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED AN ENERGY TRANSFER THAT IS GREATER THAN ZERO?

Regards,
Rosemary

There is a whole slew of items that would need to be agreed upon, one of which would be the measurement protocol.
 
In addition to the measurement protocol, we would need to agree that:
 
1) The INPUT power has to be confirmed (and agree with each other within an agreed upon percentage, say 5%) with at least two different measurement methods.
 
2) I would have full license to place instrument probes where I wish, as long as it is within the agreed upon measurement protocol.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 07:53:58 PM

There is a whole slew of items that would need to be agreed upon, one of which would be the measurement protocol.
I PROPOSE YOU COMPILE THAT LIST
 
In addition to the measurement protocol, we would need to agree that:
 
1) The INPUT power has to be confirmed (and agree with each other within an agreed upon percentage, say 5%) with at least two different measurement methods.
You better be considerably clearer than this.  I've NO idea what you mean.  There is an established protocal tht determines this.  If you plan to apply that absurd nonsense of multiplying negative voltages with positive current flows - then actually that's not negotiable.
 
2) I would have full license to place instrument probes where I wish, as long as it is within the agreed upon measurement protocol.
You can measure what you want.  The only thing you can't do is measure at inappropriate points.  I think we better agree exactly WHERE measurements become inappropriate. 

Lots to do Poynty.  You'll be busy.  Just warn Professor Steven E Jones - that he's likely going to have to part with his coins.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 08:11:34 PM
You better be considerably clearer than this.  I've NO idea what you mean.  There is an established protocal tht determines this.
I mean what I said. TWO different measurement methods must agree.
 
Quote
If you plan to apply that absurd nonsense of multiplying negative voltages with positive current flows - then actually that's not negotiable.
I'm afraid the power polarity issue is going to be a show stopper if you can't wrap your head around the simple concept that the power polarities of sources and loads are OPPOSITE.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 08:15:55 PM
I mean what I said. TWO different measurement methods must agree.
OUTLINE ALL INTENDED MEASUREMENT METHODS.

I'm afraid the power polarity issue is going to be a show stopper if you can't wrap your head around the simple concept that the power polarities of sources and loads are OPPOSITE.
STICK TO THE POINT Poynty.  WE DETAIL OUR PROBE POSITIONS IN THAT PAPER.  YOU NEED TO AGREE ON THEM.

Regards
as ever
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 08:22:12 PM
WE DETAIL OUR PROBE POSITIONS IN THAT PAPER.

IRRELEVANT!
 
You need to understand that the power polarities of Sources and Loads are OPPOSITE.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 08:26:18 PM

IRRELEVANT!
 
You need to understand that the power polarities of Sources and Loads are OPPOSITE.
You're teetering again Poynty.  Do not think that I'm on an exercise to be taught by you.  Before this rather tenuous agreement explodes in both our faces - may I propose that you simply sit down and compile your intended test parameters that will prove our claim.

Thank you.
Regard,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 08:30:50 PM
There is no point as I've already stated...until:
 
You understand that the power polarities of Sources and Loads are OPPOSITE.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 08:33:36 PM
There is no point as I've already stated...until:
 
You understand that the power polarities of Sources and Loads are OPPOSITE.

They are INDEED opposite.  But they do not DELIVER energy at the SAME TIME.  First the one.  Then the other.  And so on.  And so on.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 08:34:13 PM
Please DO go get taught by somebody.
 
Your basic knowledge of electrical and electronics theory is abysmal.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 08:36:26 PM
They are INDEED opposite.  But they do not DELIVER energy at the SAME TIME.  First the one.  Then the other.  And so on.  And so on.

Regards,
Rosie

WRONG.
 
While the source is supplying energy, the loads are dissipating that same energy.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 08:40:06 PM
Please DO go get taught by somebody.
 
Your basic knowledge of electrical and electronics theory is abysmal.

Poynt.  We've got a situation here - where you have proposed that I bring our equipment to you to measure our energy.  I'm GAME.  In fact I'm delighted.  NOW.  What you need to do is either CONFIRM that the measurement protocols outlined in our paper is correct.  Or they're not.  If you have ANY OBJECTION to what we've detailed - THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS. 

That's all.
Regards,
Rosie 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 08:45:03 PM
Poynt.  We've got a situation here - where you have proposed that I bring our equipment to you to measure our energy.  I'm GAME.  In fact I'm delighted.  NOW.  What you need to do is either CONFIRM that the measurement protocols outlined in our paper is correct.  Or they're not.  If you have ANY OBJECTION to what we've detailed - THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS. 

That's all.
Regards,
Rosie

Sorry Rosemary, but it's not possible for you to understand your own measurements (nor anyone's measurements for that matter), when you can not even understand basic DC theory. DC theory is as simple as it gets, and you don't get it that the power polarities of the battery and load resistor in a simple DC circuit are OPPOSITE.
 
I gave you the opportunity to prove that you understood this, and you failed. The diagram and "problem" was simple and you failed.
 
Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to enter into any wager with you since you would be arguing from a standpoint that is well below or laterally way off the required target.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 08:52:34 PM
<