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

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.

You are getting vague Poynt.  Let me remind you.  We have already outlined the test parameters applied - in our paper.  IF THEY ARE WRONG - OR IF YOU INTEND APPLYING ANY OTHER MEASUREMENTS then let us know WHAT WHERE AND WHY.

Do NOT second guess what may or may not be in my mind or anyone else's. We need to look at the protocols that you INTEND APPLYING.  It's not confrontational.  It is NOT A WAGER.  It is a simple attempt at establishing those 'goal posts' that they don't get moved through this exercise.  I am MOST ANXIOUS to assure you that we are MORE THAN READY TO LET OUR APPARATUS BE SCRUTINISED MEASURED AND TESTED.  But we need to know EXACTLY what you intend testing - and what you consider as proof.  That is REASONABLE.  And I'm sure, Poynty Point that you're a reasonable sort of person.

As ever,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 12:07:39 AM
I'm not being vague at all Rosemary.
 
In fact I'm being quite specific as to what minimum level of understanding YOU must have before I enter into any formal agreements with you.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 04:08:05 AM
I'm not being vague at all Rosemary.
 
In fact I'm being quite specific as to what minimum level of understanding YOU must have before I enter into any formal agreements with you.

This is getting laughable.  If you're going to evaluate our circuit Poynty - then the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS TO KNOW WHAT MEASUREMENTS YOU INTEND APPLYING.  That has NOTHING to do with my understanding or lack of it.  It's the HONEST AND OPEN REQUIREMENT OF ANY OPEN SOURCE NEGOTIATION where the CLAIMANT MUST AT LEAST know what measurement is to be applied.   ANYTHING that I DON'T understand - TRUST me - I'll ASK.

I am not an Itseung who - poor soul - trusted his circuit to a prayer.  And then submitted it to  your's and Professor Steven E Jones' MERCY - to CRUCIFY both it and him to your heart's content.  Where you both indulged in a series of measurements that had the added disgrace of being void of ANY DEFINED TERMS WHATSOEVER.  Where his constant appeals to you both to re-evaluate those numbers is ENTIRELY IGNORED.  And this the fruits of his own hard work spanning God knows how many years.  And this just another example of the victimisation of yet another poor claimant attempting to alert you all to his work.  Where the only WONDER is that he persists in his requests with a courtesy and constraint - with a degree of politeness - that is EXEMPLARY.  Itseung is just one of the MANY claimants that you have managed to DISPATCH in a welter of obtuse arguments rendered mostly in utterly undefined ACRONYMS.  God knows why you rely on this over use.  It's removes an argument of any sense while you shroud all with implication that you're accessing some kind of HIGHER KNOWLEDGE.  All this while you do that dance of the 7 veils.

NOW.  Define your intended measurement protocols - or WITHDRAW YOUR OFFER OF A PRIZE IN ITS ENTIRETY.  I'll tell you WHY Poynt.99 RECURRING - INTO INFINITY.  It's because you may otherwise accept our measurement protocols - but reserve the right to apply your own UNDEFINED PROTOCOLS.  AS YOU PREFER.  And then.  FAG my understanding - or lack of it.  We, the readers here and your own members - will then KNOW that you're not exactly either OPEN OR ABOVE BOARD.

This nonsense about requiring that I first understand science according to POYNTY POINT.  If that is the EXPLICIT requirement then ADD THAT to your conditions of qualification.  Let's all SEE this mockery of criteria that you that you NOW require in order to DEFEAT another valid claim for that Prize of yours.   

OR if you're now saying that I DON'T qualify for your prize because I am not credentialed.  Don't worry too much.  There are many even amongst our GREATS who managed insights to progress science - without any credentials AT ALL.  And its not as if we're dealing with a major variation to the STANDARD MODEL HERE POYNTY.  Nor are we asking you to understand the thesis.  You couldn't anyway.  What we're asking you to do is simply EXPLAIN your intended measurement protocols.  THAT'S MOST CERTAINLY REQUIRED.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 04:14:23 AM
The essential message is this:

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you. That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY. I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense. If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory and power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.

About that list of protocols etc., when and if you're ready (based on the above), then we'll talk. But NOT before!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 04:19:57 AM
The essential message is this:

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you. That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY. I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense. If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory  power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.

THIS IS RICH.  Now I must first bend my mind around that PAPER? of yours.   Do we first do an analysis of THAT?  So that I can demonstrate to you that not ONLY do I understand it - but that it's an assemblage of the most PITIABLE criteria that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.  I'm more than happy to ENGAGE.  Where do we start.  Page 1.  Or do we refer to those diagrams where you don't even describe where you signal ground goes?

I'M READY STEADY GO - TO GIVE THIS MY BEST SHOT.  Do I post that first page of arguments?  OR DO YOU?

Regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 04:23:34 AM
I was NOT referring to my document called: "detailed_analysis06.pdf".

I was referring to the simple DC power problem I gave you a number of pages back. I will try to find it and post the link...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 04:31:49 AM
The essential message is this:

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you. That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY. I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense. If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory and power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.

About that list of protocols etc., when and if you're ready (based on the above), then we'll talk. But NOT before!

LET ME SEE THAT ARGUMENT OF YOURS.  AND THEN I'LL GET BACK TO THIS POST.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 04:42:57 AM
Here is the simple DC power problem I gave you before:

Please provide the calculations for power delivered by the battery, and power dissipated by RLOAD. BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE POLARITY OF EACH RESULT.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 05:05:13 AM
Here is the simple DC power problem I gave you before:

Please provide the calculations for power delivered by the battery, and power dissipated by RLOAD. BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE POLARITY OF EACH RESULT.

Nothing wrong with what you're showing there.  Now.  What is your point? 

Here's what I see.  The battery is able to release the flow of current through the load resistor - in this example in a clockwise justification.  This current flows back to the battery negative terminal thereby reducing the potential difference at that battery supply.  No problem.  BECAUSE there's a flow of current - then the amount of energy delivered by that battery is based on an analysis of wattage, which, in turn is the product of the battery volts and the amperage flow over time.  And all things being equal - because the wattage is from the battery - that number is represented as a positive number.

THEN. ONLY WHEN THAT CURRENT FLOW IS INTERRUPTED - the induced potential difference over the circuit components - including the LOAD resistor that you show, is able to discharge its 'stored' potential energy.  BUT.  That voltage that was INDUCED across that Load resistor - is in ANTI PHASE to the applied voltage from the supply.  Therefore - in relation to the supply that voltage is NEGATIVE.  IT THEN DISCHARGES that potential difference and this induces a current flow that is in anti phase to the previous flow of current.  Therefore the current flow is negative. Therefore a product of a negative voltage and the negative current flow would result in a POSITIVE SUM? Is that your argument?  I have no problem.

BUT.  You cannot argue that the power that is dissipated as a result of the collapsing fields in that element has been DISCHARGED BY THE BATTERY SUPPLY.   It MAY have been first delivered by the battery  But it is now moving in a counter clock-wise direction.  It does not DISCHARGE the battery.  If anything it RECHARGES the battery.

So.  What is your point?

Rosemary
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 05:12:24 AM
Nothing wrong with what you're showing there.  Now.  What is your point? 

Here's what I see.  The battery is able to release the flow of current through the load resistor - in this example in a clockwise justification.  This current flows back to the batter negative terminal thereby reducing the potential difference at that battery supply.  No problem.  BECAUSE there's a flow of current - then the amount of energy delivered by that battery is based on an analysis of wattage, which, in turn is the product of the battery volts and the amperage flow over time.  And all things being equal - because the wattage is from the battery - that number is represented as a positive number.

THEN. ONLY WHEN THAT CURRENT FLOW IS INTERRUPTED - the induced potential difference over the circuit components - including the LOAD resistor that you show, is able to discharge its 'stored' potential energy.  BUT.  That voltage that was INDUCED across that Load resistor - is in ANTI PHASE to the applied voltage from the supply.  Therefore - in relation to the supply that voltage is NEGATIVE.  IT THEN DISCHARGES that
potential difference and this induces a current flow that is in anti phase to the previous flow of current.  Therefore the current flow is negative.  Therefore a product of a negative voltage and the negative current flow would result in a POSITIVE SUM? Is that your argument?  I have no problem.

BUT.  You cannot argue that the power that is dissipated as a result of the collapsing fields in that element has been DISCHARGED BY THE BATTERY SUPPLY.   It MAY have been first delivered by the battery  But it is now moving in a counter clock-wise direction.

So.  What is your point?

Rosemary

First of all, you seem to think that the circuit I posted is related to YOUR circuit somehow, am I correct?

That is NOT my intention, nor is that the case when you look at the circuit. There are no switches, there are no transistors or MOSFETs, there is no inductance. What we have there is simply a pure DC voltage supplied by the battery, connected to a pure resistive load RLOAD.

Care to try again?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 05:20:29 AM
First of all, you seem to think that the circuit I posted is related to YOUR circuit somehow, am I correct?

That is NOT my intention, nor is that the case when you look at the circuit. There are no switches, there are no transistors or MOSFETs, there is no inductance. What we have there is simply a pure DC voltage supplied by the battery, connected to a pure resistive load RLOAD.

Care to try again?

In which case you have the flow of current from a battery supply that is consistent with the applied voltage from the BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE and the Ohm's value of the resistor.  I can't remember if you specified a resistive value.   but IF R = 10 and Vbatt = 12 - then you've got the measure of the current flow as v/r=1.2 amps or thereby.

If you do have a point - please explain it.  I suspect it's to do with the fact that the voltage over the resistor is established in anti phase to the battery supply voltage.  But since the resistor is NOT delivering any current from that applied potential difference - then the amount of energy that it's delivering back to the supply - is ZERO.  Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.

Rosemary

Added and changed.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 05:27:54 AM
In which case you have the flow of current from a battery supply that is consistent with the applied voltage from the BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE and the Ohm's value of the resistor.  I can't remember if you specified a resistive value.   but IF R = 10 and Vbatt = 12 - then you've got the measure of the current flow as v/r=1.2 amps or thereby.
The values are as follows:
VBAT = 50VDC
RLOAD = 10 Ohms

Quote
If you do have a point - please explain it.  I suspect it's to do with the fact that the voltage over the resistor is established in anti phase to the battery supply voltage.  But since the resistor is NOT delivering any current from that applied potential difference - then the amount of energy that it's delivering back to the supply is ZERO. Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.

My question once again was this:

Please provide the actual value in Watts and polarity for:

a) the battery power and
b) the load power.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 05:41:52 AM
Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.
What 'obviously' happens if the current from the battery is interrupted in my circuit?

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 05:43:12 AM
In which case you have the flow of current from a battery supply that is consistent with the applied voltage from the BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE and the Ohm's value of the resistor.  I can't remember if you specified a resistive value.   but IF R = 10 and Vbatt = 12 - then you've got the measure of the current flow as v/r=1.2 amps or thereby.

If you do have a point - please explain it.  I suspect it's to do with the fact that the voltage over the resistor is established in anti phase to the battery supply voltage.  But since the resistor is NOT delivering any current from that applied potential difference - then the amount of energy that it's delivering back to the supply - is ZERO.  Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.

Rosemary

Added and changed.

Sorry.  I used the wrong term.  I amended it in this post.  NOT zero DISSIPATION which is nonsense.  It now reads - AS IT SHOULD - Zero discharge of current.  But I'll get back to your question.  I'm having difficulties getting a 'nested' quote number.

Be right back.
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 05:49:50 AM
The values are as follows:
VBAT = 50VDC
RLOAD = 10 Ohms
 :o
Please explain in greater detail why the resistor is dissipating 0W?
Reference my previous post.  This is explained. It most certainly is dissipating energy.

My question once again was this:

Please provide the actual value in Watts and polarity for:

a) the battery power and
b) the load power.

a) Given that the battery voltage is 50 V and the resistor 10 - then amperage = 50/10 = 5 amps.  Therefore 50 volts x 5 amps = 250 Watts.
b) The dissipated energy at the load = i^2r.  Therefore the amount of energy dissipated at the load is 5 x 5 x 10 = 250 Watts.
c) or the dissipated energy can be calculated as V^2/r.  Therefore 50 x 50 / 10 = 250 Watts.

Where does polarity come into this? 

Rosemary 

added emphasis - and included ^'2' - which was a small oversight
And added another option because I'm getting bored waiting for a reply
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 08:17:00 AM
Poynty Point

This is here for when you wake up.  I think I know what you're trying to point to.  Your argument is that there's a voltage over the load resistor is in antiphase to the applied voltage from the battery supply.  This is unarguable. But when a battery delivers it's current flow then that flow returns to that supply.  And in so doing it diminishes the potential difference.  When an element resistor or any load in series with that supply - dissipates energy in the form of heat and as a result of an 'exchange of energy' between it's components and that current flow - then this heat is irradiated outwards - from a source.  It has no polarity.

When and IF one interrupts the current flow from a battery supply - then - and ONLY THEN - can the potential difference across the load resistor - generate any current flow at all.  And then it DOES have a polarity.  And this is in terms of inductive laws where the induced magnetic fields then 'collapse' thereby generating counter electromotive force.  Which we all know so well.  But in the discharge of that energy - we have a more complex problem  Because in terms of that discharge - some energy is returned to the battery to 'recharge' it - which must be factored into that power analysis.  And some of that energy is ALSO dissipated at the resistor element, load.

So.  Polarity of that voltage across the element resistor - load - whatever - has NO BEARING on the rate of current flow from the supply NOR the rate at which energy is dissipated - in our example - as heat.  Voltage across the resistor is NOT responsible for the energy dissipated at that workstation.  The current from the supply source IS.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 02, 2012, 02:22:11 PM
You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.

Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.

Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor. So we have:

PRLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:

PVBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)

So the answers to the question are:

a) Battery Power = -250W
b) RLOAD Power = 250W

Understood? Agreed?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 04:52:42 PM
Poynty. 

This last post of yours is the most astonishing piece of nonsense that I have ever had the misfortune to read.  What is alarming is that you are patently serious.  And my dilemma is that IF I argue it at all there will be the general impression that there's an OUNCE of argument worth arguing.  Which there isn't.  But what is REALLY worrisome - is this.  Not one of our members is actually saying anything.  Which means that they're 'undecided' - at best.  Or they're entirely bored with the argument in the first instance.  If you are seriously proposing to REPLACE standard protocols with this illogical nonsense - I assure you that you will FAIL.  No amount of 'academics' protesting in that paper - will endorse this Poynty.  I saw this as your argument.  I referred to it repeatedly in my own posts.  I then thought that - just maybe - I'd misunderstood you.  And I now see that you are actually EXPECTING us - not only to buy into this - BUT TO SERIOUSLY PROPOSE TO REPLACE OUR STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS with this?

You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.
I am NOT struggling with polarity.  I'm struggling to believe that you're actually serious.

Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.
WHAT?  What do you mean by 'comparing the battery and load?  There's NO MAGIC THERE.  It's a FACT.  The voltage from a supply generates a current flow that is consistent with the voltage measured at the supply.  What it does do is generate an opposing VOLTAGE across the circuit components.

Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.
Absolutely NOT.  The power delivered anywhere at all be it from a resistor or circuit component or battery supply - or even a GRID PLUG - is the product of the APPLIED VOLTAGE AND the rate of current flow. And current ALWAYS FLOWS relative to it's supply.  Therefore a negative voltage induces a current flow that is less than zero.  And a positive voltage induces a positive current that is greater than zero.

And since you've got a resistor there and NOT a motor - then your load will DISSIPATE HEAT which has absolutely NO POLARITY AT ALL.  it will be seen to irradiate outwards away from its source.  THAT'S IT.

R   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 05:03:01 PM
Here your terms, as ever are vague and confusing.  But let me see what I can make of them.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).[/qupte]Convention most certainly does NOT STATE THAT VOLTAGE 'DROPS' ACROSS A LOAD in the direction of current.
What NONSENSE. What do you even mean?  By drop?  By any of it?  Convention holds that a the applied current through a load generates a voltage across that load.  And that voltage is in antiphase to the applied voltage.  Since current flows relative to its applied voltage then the voltage established across that load must therefore be in antiphase to the applied voltage.  NOTHING TO DO WITH 'DROPPING' anything at all.  On the contrary.  It's value is RELATIVE TO ZERO - and relative to the flow of current.

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor.
Current and voltage where?  From the supply?  From the circuit you've drawn?  If you're referring ONLY to your circuit then the CURRENT IS NOT ONLY IN PHASE WITH THE SUPPLY IT'S IN LOCK STEP.  AND ITS PHASE RELATIONSHIP TO THE VOLTAGE INDUCED ACROSS THE RESISTOR IS IRRELEVANT.  The current from the battery will ALWAYS be greater than zero.  IT IS A FACT THAT the voltage established across that resistor is in ANTIPHASE TO THE FLOW OF CURRENT.  But that voltage across the resistor DOES NOT GENERATE CURRENT - NOT in that circuit.  Therefore - while the measured voltage across that resistor is NEGATIVE until it generates a current flow its POWER IS ZERO.  IF ANYTHING - what we ACTUALLY HAVE IS a POSITIVE current flow and a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE ACROSS THAT LOAD.  That's not SPECULATIVE.  That's FACT.  And that diametrically OPPOSES the conclusion in that adventurous little equation of yours.

PRLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)
Which makes this little sum the single most extraordinary piece of illogical deduction that has ever been visited on science.  The POWER that is dissipated at the load is the product of the APPLIED VOLTAGE FROM THE SUPPLY which, in your circuit is your battery - and the rate of current flow through that load.  That's it.  The fact that there's an opposite voltage induced across the load resistor - is irrelevant to the power dissipated by that resistor.  That voltage CAN DO NOTHING - UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CIRCUIT IS OPENED.  You've shown us a standard circuit supplied by a battery.  NO SWITCHES.  When I proposed a switch you patiently advised that you WERE ONLY LOOKING AT THAT CIRCUIT.  Therefore?  There is no power whatsoever in the voltage that is induced across that load.  BECAUSE THERE IS NO CURRENT FLOW INDUCED BY THAT VOLTAGE.  IT IS only potential difference.  IT IS NOT POWER UNTIL THERE'S A FLOW OF CURRENT. P=VI 


R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
Hopefully we're nearing the end of your arguments.

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:
Franky this is just utter nonsense.  You INSISTED THAT WE ONLY REFERRED TO THAT CIRCUIT OF YOURS.  In that circuit THEREFORE, if the current flow from the battery was not in phase with the voltage from the battery then you have a unique and HISTORICAL event that has absolutely no bearing on known physics.  Which makes the balance of this post UTTERLY ABSURD and I'm only copying it here that it can stand for the record.

PVBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)
 
 So the answers to the question are:
 
 a) Battery Power = -250W
 b) RLOAD Power = 250W
 
 Understood? Agreed?
And I most certainly NEITHER UNDERSTAND THIS NOR AGREE.  You'd need to UPEND known physics to try and carry this rubbish.  I just hope to God that there are readers here who are aware of it.  But what I DO see is the dearth of understanding related to power computation. 

God help us all.  I wish I could get some glimpse into your motives Poynty Point.  Either you KNOW that the readers here are fools and able to believe this claptrap - or you HOPE they are.  Or - which is even more alarming - you actually believe all this.  I give up.  I really do.  It's one thing to plough through your earlier nonsense.  This is elevating it to the outer limits of reason and entirely out of reach of the standard model.

Regards,
Rosemary[/quote]
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 02, 2012, 05:15:49 PM
Reference my previous post.  This is explained. It most certainly is dissipating energy.

a) Given that the battery voltage is 50 V and the resistor 10 - then amperage = 50/10 = 5 amps.  Therefore 50 volts x 5 amps = 250 Watts.
b) The dissipated energy at the load = i^2r.  Therefore the amount of energy dissipated at the load is 5 x 5 x 10 = 250 Watts.
c) or the dissipated energy can be calculated as V^2/r.  Therefore 50 x 50 / 10 = 250 Watts.

Where does polarity come into this? 

Rosemary 

added emphasis - and included ^'2' - which was a small oversight
And added another option because I'm getting bored waiting for a reply

HERE IS THE ACTUAL WATTAGE AS PER THE STANDARD MODEL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 03, 2012, 01:25:47 AM
My my, you sure got yourself worked up into a tizzy there Rosemary. Kinda reminds me of the hissy-fits my sister used to have when she was a girl.  :o

You must be right about me and about what I've posted, after all, what chance of being correct would a person who has 27 years experience in electronics have against someone with no formal training at all?

What was I thinking?  ::)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 03, 2012, 03:53:53 AM

You must be right about me and about what I've posted, after all, what chance of being correct would a person who has 27 years experience in electronics have against someone with no formal training at all?

What was I thinking?  ::)

My dear Poynty Point,
Perhaps you could advise me how my lack of training in electronics has anything, whatsoever, to do with elementary power analysis and fundamental physics.  And I really need to stress this.  I am MORE THAN HAPPY to concede to my IGNORANCE related to circuitry - circuit components - and the myriad complexities that are associated with electronic engineering.  What you guys do is mind boggling.  But DO NOT THEN ASSUME that you can UPEND known protocols in the analysis of SIMPLE POWER COMPUTATION.  If that hasn't been working as well as it has for the last century or so - then we would all be sorely BEREFT of those miracles that our electronic engineers have managed.  But PLEASE.  Do not presume that you can CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS. 

The joke of all this is that  I am widely accused of the most serious departures from the standard model.  And this has been the bases of those 'attacks' that have been personally abusive, unwarranted, inappropriate and even criminal - relying, as they do, on traducement and slander.  For some reason, best understood by yourself and your 'friends', there is this overwhelming need to INSIST that I am stupid.  Well.  I may not be that bright.  Actually I have no interest whatsoever, in disabusing you of my lack of intelligence or otherwise.  In fact.  I am PROUD to say that I believe my intellect is DECIDEDLY BUT BARELY AVERAGE.  Then I put it to you - that IT DOES NOT NEED AN ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE to wrap one's mind around the basics of physics.  And I rather suspect that those abstractions that you appear to indulge - are probably the result of a corruption resulting from too much unnecessary complexity - applied to SIMPLE CONCEPTS.  And this, I see as a real problem.  You and your friends are trying to appear to be 'clever'.  It's NOT RELEVANT.  Your level of intelligence, my own level of intelligence?  They're irrelevant.  The only thing that IS RELEVANT is SCIENCE.  And for some reason, best understood by yourselves, you have all tried to promote yourselves by indulging in these absurd abstractions - with the use of terms and arguments that are THAT OBSCURE that they're now OUT OF REACH.  It would be as well to get back to basics. 

Anyway. I need to wrap this up.  Or I'll just be boring you all with yet another rant.
Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 03, 2012, 04:35:00 AM
Ok Guys,

One of the many complaints against me is that I have taken all these thousands of words to argue my case.  WELL.  That's what's needed.  You see, from the OUTSET there was an entire lack of courtesy and constraint - in the evaluation of a really simple proposal.  Which is this.  IF you impose the theoretical condition of a particle in a magnetic field - then you will find that the field - as known and described in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force - will be seen to be a PRIMARY FORCE.  In other words, its interaction with all matter that is measurable - would then correspond to the known forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear force.  That's a SIMPLE proposal.  It does NOT conflict with the standard model - and it is PROFOUNDLY significant because if it's even HALF RIGHT - it shows the potential to access a copious supply of energy that has, heretofore, been OUT OF REACH.  Certainly that's where it points.

The irony is this.  We were able to PROVE a COP>17.  That resulted in that 'howl' that I referred to earlier.  But from that day to this, there has not been a SINGLE attempt to understand what was meant by that field model.  And THAT - is the unfortunate consequence of the ASSUMPTIONS and ALLEGATIONS that are permitted in these forums.  Where one assumes that we're to have a discussion on physics - we're actually doing nothing more than engaging in - as it's described here - a 'pissing' contest.  And that is UTTERLY inappropriate.  And the ONLY thing that was entirely outlawed was a serious discussion about the fundamentals of that initial proposal.  And THAT was my entire interest.   I've ALWAYS known that our own little demonstration is really just a small, SMALL token to this potential.  God knows.  Even Rossi's extraordinary breakthroughs are just the first opening of that door.

What beggars belief is that there are those members who ASSUME that I may not comment because I have no CREDENTIALS.  I am reasonably satisfied that it would be a relatively easy exercise to write some exams and thereby BECOME credentialed.  But that would most CERTAINLY then promote me as an EXPERT - or WORSE.  What benefit is there in promoting a concept that we all need to wrap our heads around - when it is first required that this is OUT OF REACH unless you're an expert?  This UNDUE deference to qualification.  We are all of us qualified to comment on sscience.  And the wider the engagement the better.  It has, heretofore, and rather unfortunately, been shrouded in mystique.  But fortunately for us all that mystique is now considerably lessened by the hard efforts of those EXPERTS who have tried to explain all of physics in layman's terms.  And if you have assumed that it's difficult and impossibly abstract - let me assure you.  It really is NOT.  It is simple - and actually rather beautiful.  it calls for a study of symmetry - so, it's possibly essentially - geometrical - or mathematical.  But it is NOT out of reach. Not even to my grandchildren.

Anyway.  That's my appeal.  I really need to wrap up this thread.  I'll deal with that over the weekend.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 03, 2012, 06:10:51 AM
And MileHigh,

As ever, you are MilesOffTheMark.  In answer to your latest nonsense.  Where in our paper do we claim a recharge of that returning energy?  On the contrary.  If you're going to try and argue any part of this then - at its least - one would expect you to refer to our ACTUAL claim.  Not to what you ALLEGE or ASSUME.  One day, I hope, you'll actually make your comments both topical and appropriate.  But that would mean that you'd need to familiarise yourself with what we're ACTUALLY stating.  And I'm not sure that you're quite capable of quite that much.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 03, 2012, 02:13:36 PM
Where in our paper do we claim a recharge of that returning energy?
Below are several instances taken from your paper, which I posted a little while back:


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.

Quote
What may now be required is a revision 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.

Quote
A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.

Quote
This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it.

Quote
Because the sum of the energy returned to the battery is greater than the energy delivered, these test results appear to contradict the requirement of a co-efficient of performance (COP) equal to 1.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 03, 2012, 03:59:52 PM
Below are several instances taken from your paper, which I posted a little while back:

I THINK we need to establish our TEST measurement protocol before we take this discussion further.  Could you please elaborate on that SECOND optional method of analysis?   Or were you proposing those extraordinary protocols that you detailed above?  We've still to establish what is REQUIRED for PROOF for our demonstration.  Remember?

And I am most certainly NOT about to engage in a discussion of sentences that are isolated out of context. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 03, 2012, 05:22:52 PM
AFAIAC,

The discussion is already finished.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 03, 2012, 08:26:55 PM
Well then Poynty. 

Unlike you, we have applied measurement protocols that stand up to scrutiny and have the very real merit of conforming to the standard model - that prove our claim.  As I've mentioned we'd be more than happy to demonstrate this.  It seems however that you're rather more anxious to ignore our protocols and apply your own.  That certainly will disqualify our claim.  But I wonder if you could also take the trouble to list that criteria as a required qualification for your prize.  Then I think that we will all know better than to take that prize offer seriously.  And advise Professor Steven E Jones that I, for one, am increasingly concerned that he's actually not 'fighting the cause' so to speak, as he seems to pretend.  From where I sit he actually seems determined to ignore or disprove any claims and claimants both.  Not nice.  And not unlike yourself, come to think of it.  No wonder he gets his internet identity confused with your own.  I also happen to know he has the same heavy dependency on an overuse of undefined acronyms.  And I can see why.  There's no better way to spread confusion and doubt.  Always required if you're going to attack experimental evidence - certainly for purposes of hanging onto your coins or prizes or what have you. 

Anyway Poynt Point.  It's been a salutary little episode.  I believe a first.  I'm not sure that anyone before has managed to expose the extent of your 'strange science'.  Frankly we all assumed that you were well able to do elementary power analysis.  And all this time you were promoting an entirely different thing altogether. Still not altogether sure what it is.  Perhaps you can give us paper on it one day.  And when you write it don't forget to add that dialogue with those awe struck academics who are relegated to the sidelines and allowed very little say.  It's a rather entertaining convention you've managed there. 

I take it that our own results are thereby DISMISSED?  Would that be a fair description?  Based on the fact that our measurements do not comply to those required by yourself - and regardless of the fact that they comply to all known conventional methods of measurements.  That's a fair summation I think.  Oh.  And of course, because I myself am an amateur - halfwit - with no schooling to speak of and even less intelligence. 

Seems fair and impartial on the face of it.  So.  I'll not trouble you for that claim.  I'll just reserve the right to revisit this claim of ours should I continue to see that liberal attack that you manage against our technology and against any other claims that happen to conflict with your own eccentric mathematics.  I think you may need some reminding.  Otherwise God knows.  You'll eventually manage to DISPROVE all valid claims of over unity.  And that would be a crying shame.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 04, 2012, 04:43:25 AM
Guys,

What's needed here is some kind of summation on the history of this. I've reworked this because the post was too long.

For the record.  From the get go - about 12 years ago - we could not get our demonstration to the academic table despite HUGE efforts.  Our First claim related to experimental evidence of COP>17.  About 20 engineers - probably closer to 30 - had seen that experiment.  Eventually we demonstrated this - and conducted other tests for - experts in SASOL, BP, ABB research (in North Carolina), SPESCOM and many other smaller electrical engineering firms.   Those listed above ALLOWED US TO USE THEIR NAMES AS ACCREDITORS in the publication of a paper on this which we FINALLY managed in a technical journal.  The then CEO of SASOL even went so far as offering a BURSARY AWARD to UCT to take this study further.  And that offer was declined.  We also demonstrated this apparatus at the MTN SCIENCENTRE - for an extended 10 days - ostensibly to alert those scientists at a conference there - to the existence of this claim of ours.  Not ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS even DEIGNED to see the demonstration which was available and in FULL SWING for the duration of that conference. 

That's some of the early history around some of the thesis behind these tests.

emphasis
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 04, 2012, 07:16:41 AM
Anyway.  To continue/..

Now.  I DARE NOT include the history of this on these forums - which was the 'second generation' of this circuit's history.  Because that will simply engender a renewed attack.  Suffice it to say that the test was replicated - a paper was written and submitted to the IEEE - and it was REJECTED without going to review.  And subsequently the replicator denied those results.  3 of the 7 of us collaborators then embarked on a campaign to ENTIRELY DISMISS THE EVIDENCE based on multiple criminal allegations against me personally including claims of fraud, deceit and willful misadventure.  Alternatively, I was accused of ignorance, foolishness, stupidity, senility, poor dress sense, and on, and on, and on.  And, to boot I apparently have a penchant for wearing my pyjamas in public.  If only you knew.  I'm female.  Very much so.  Which means I MULTI TASK.  When I write physics I'm thinking 'SHOES'.  When I'm engaged in experiments I'm thinking 'SHOPPING'.  We all do.  We're genetically encoded.  I most CERTAINLY won't wear my pyjamas in public.  God forbid.  It would be impossible to accessorize.  Not that any of this matters unduly.  I only mention this to show you the sheer freedom of choice that they allow themselves in those EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS to diminish me in direct proportion to their denial of this experimental evidence.  It's actually quite funny.  In fact, reading their hate blog is the one thing in the day that has me rolling with laughter.  It's hysterical.  If I need a 'lift' - then I take a dip in there.  Such obsessive INTEREST.  Golly.

Anyway I need to get back on topic.  Here's where I made a BIG mistake.  I ASSUMED - that there was an ocean of goodwill in these 'energy' obsessed forums.  How little did I know. I really had NOT considered the enormous weight of all that competing and vested interest.  It simply  DID NOT OCCUR TO ME.  There was a billion dollar GLOBAL industry - based on carbon based fuels and nuclear power generation - that RELIES on perpetuating the STATUS QUO.  And to perpetuate that status quo they only need a few well fielded scientists to challenge the academics, those Fleischmann and Pons' of this world.  And on the other side it only needs a few well schooled in psyops  - to challenge the forums where claimants dare 'claim' any kind of over unity at all.  And it's that psyops program that I'd like to expose in this little exercise here exclusively related to THE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF POWER ACCORDING TO POYNTY POINT.

The schedule follows...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 04, 2012, 07:17:19 AM
Here's that list.
It is my considered opinion ...
 .   that anyone with 27 years of experience in electronics cannot seriously compute wattage from a measured voltage WITHOUT the flow of current.
 .   that nor can anyone seriously propose that the energy is not WHOLLY conserved but that Power IS.
 .   that notwithstanding Poynt's argument to the contrary, a battery supply source is NOT capable of delivering a negative current flow.
 .   that convention has adequately described polarities related to wattage analysis which convention impeccably represents all power measurements.
 .   that to apply his protocols one would first need to upend standard protocols.
 .   that it is catastrophically incorrect to claim voltage across a load resistor is consistent with the direction of the flow of current from a supply source.
 .   that Poynty relies on ASSUMPTION that our oscilloscope probes are reading the incorrect battery voltage.
 .   which flies in the face of the evidence where we apply those probes directly to the battery terminals
 .   that Poynty relies on eccentric and illogical deductions related to all these points to refute our claim
 .   that he also relies on eccentric and illogical deductions to refute his own simulated evidence
 .   that he relies on ill defined terminologies and acronyms to deliberately confuse our members with the impression of some higher knowledge
 .   notwithstanding the fact that he is aware of the need of all science to be clear - as is Professor Jones
 .   that there are those members who are not aware of the mathematical corruptions that he continually applies
 .   that they are both committed to the denial of all over unity claims - in principle and regardless of the evidence
 .   that the offer of a prize is a lure to the unsuspecting claimants that there is any serious intention of doing a sincere evaluation
 .   that they apply techniques of scorn - gossip - and traducement and slander -  to the claimants in order to diminish the claim by association
 .   that it is grossly unprofessional to engage at that level as this is, indeed, ACTIONABLE - SUBJECT only to a disclosure of their names
 .   that the stronger the claim the stronger is that traducement and the greater then is their criminal indulgence in slander
 .   that this is exercised as an abuse of 'freedom of speech' which in its essence requires a full accountability and disclosure of their names
 .   and that they hide behind pseudonyms and optional internet identities to avoid that accountability
 .   that their efforts are well rewarded
 
 Which I think more or less covers it.  If there are other points I'll add them.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 04, 2012, 08:15:49 AM
HOT OFF THE PRESS GUYS.

Professor Steven E Jones has recommended the following for his PRIZE!   8)

Conditions for the OUR award:

1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes electrical, mechanical and heat-producing devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question.  The working device must be replicable.

2) Two OUR team members (agreed upon by the applicant) will make additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application, at no cost to the applicant.

3) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device (within thirty days of the completion of the OUR tests) -- then the Award will be granted.


the OUR team.


Dear Professor Jones,
We as claimants are therefore FULLY QUALIFIED TO SUBMIT OUR CLAIM.  In point of fact - WE'RE OVER QUALIFIED.  The problem is this.  We also rather depend on standard measurement protocols.  Poynty Point wants us to apply something else.  DO YOU AGREE WITH HIS INTENDED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL?

And may I remind you.  We have SENT YOU OUR PAPERS.  WHY DO YOU IGNORE OUR OWN PRESENTATIONS?  Do you ALSO recommend that
-  IF the claim happens to be in the form of a paper that is also submitted for publication
-  and IF that paper  ALSO includes my own name as first author

THEN  that the claim is also then DISMISSED - alternatively - IGNORED.  Because THAT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE.  Kindly address this our CONCERN.

Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
Another point - since I'm editing everywhere.  I realise it is ENTIRELY unlikely that either Jones or Poynty Point will ever agree to a demonstration
let alone an independent evaluation.   They dare not.  They'd have to CONCEDE that our circuit claim is ENTIRELY CORRECT.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 04, 2012, 03:15:57 PM
Anyway - pressing on - as I'd like to wrap this up.

They, that is, those who are schooled in psyops go to unusual lengths to dispute claims which include the need to 'attack' the computer systems of the claimant - on a regular basis - to tap their telephone calls - to discourage all discussion by unwitting members with the claimant by 'off forum' or 'secret' communications - to interfere with any SKYPE conferences including but not limited to the pretense of writing in the name of one or other of those in conference and thereby soliciting information or dispensing misinformation - as required.  They will publish so called 'open discussions' in a hate blog but repeatedly and continually DELETE any submissions that protest this abuse.  They will ONLY tolerate claims that are marginal - badly measured - or where the claimant's continued protest would be deemed to be 'half mad'.  Itseug's efforts being a case in point.  They will confuse those less skilled members by a welter of inappropriate measurements and analyses that have NOTHING to do with science and even less to do with the experimental evidence.  And they will pretend to an authority that is PATENTLY not theirs to pretend.

And just for a moment, think for yourselves.  What in God's name have I EVER done that could justify all that apparent 'dislike'?  Are they mad?  Who, in their right minds, spends hours upon hours, scrutinising and monitoring contributions that they conform to the right level of abuse?  What self-respecting scientist would spend even ONE MOMENT on a claim or a claimant - where their claims was patently WRONG.  WHY BOTHER?  Why schedule a list of rather badly constructed speeches that indulge PURE HATRED and NO LOGIC in answer to my own small efforts in spreading the word?  The appropriate reaction is to ignore it.  Don't go there.  Don't read that link.  If it's nonsense - then?  It'll go nowhere. SO?  I ASK YOU?  WHAt is it that we are claiming that justifies this EXTRAORDINARY and CRIMINAL and UNPROFESSIONAL abuse?  Why this need - these motives - saturated with malice - to take my persona - which is perfectly ordinary and somewhat mediocre - and make me out to be something that I am NOT?  Because a small switching circuit shows results that don't conform to standard prediction?  Because that's all we're claiming.  I put it to you that it's a tad excessive. 

Under usual circumstances - related to a sincere evaluation of science - there would be every effort to replicate the result or to THOROUGHLY investigate the claim.  That's the promise of these forums.  That's why we claimants engage.  What they're doing is to find justification for their less than scientific response by attacking even the 'dress sense' of the claimant?  What the hell gives?  Well actually.  I know what.  I know exactly why our own small contribution to the over unity cause - is THAT significant - as it relates to the THESIS - that it has sparked a  REAL panic that they resort to this inappropriate and disproportionate abuse.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 04, 2012, 03:31:43 PM
And here's why they need to SILENCE me - or alternatively - DIMINISH BOTH ME AND OUR WORK.

To begin with - it's probably as well to explain a little about the history and also the extent of our claim itself.  It's a two part exercise - a two pronged approach - so to speak, beginning, as it does, with the thesis.  What this proposes is that magnetic fields comprise a fundamental particle that is INDESTRUCTIBLE.  In other words this field is structured from a whole lot of magnetic dipoles that move together as a field.  That's their 'immutable imperative', so to speak.  They always move to a condition of 'best charge balance'.  And their best 'balance' is in a complex field structured, as has been taught us - along Faraday's Lines of Force.   Now.  I won't go into the more complex aspects of this - that relate to composites of these particles forming the photon, the electron and the proton - and indeed the neutron.  Because that's required for the justification of the whole of the field.  And that's also outside the scope of most of your interests.

What's relevant to these tests is only this.  IF indeed, these magnetic fields comprise particles, and IF they are also the 'thing' that moves through our circuits as current flow, and IF in so doing they simply 'reassemble' those fields, then what?  Surely?  Theoretically it would then possible to RECYCLE - so to speak - that current flow, into perpetuity?  In other words, if current flow simply moves away and then back towards it's source potential difference (measured as voltage) - then what could it LOSE - in terms of it's material? Those indestructible little dipoles?  The thesis proposes that it loses NOTHING.  Not one part of those fields are ever entirely lost to that source.  The ONLY thing that is varied by that movement is its potential difference.  It proposes that this movement to and from it's source is to increase it's 'best charge balance' condition by reducing its voltage imbalance.  So.  The fields go back home.  They return to their opposite terminal.  But when they get there.  When they've completed that 'orbit' through circuit material - then they can reassemble themselves, through an interaction with the material at that source. This includes those acids or alkalines or whatever.  And that way they can manage to LOWER all that potential difference.  They achieve their 'best charge balance' in response to that 'immutable imperative'. Nothing's lost.  Unlike Elvis, NOTHING has 'left the building' - so to speak.

That was the purpose of that very first test.  Here's that argument.  If we can take a current - store some of through induction onto circuit components - and then return it back to the battery to recharge it - then we're 'forcing' that system into a perpetuated 'imbalanced' charge condition and it would keep those fields busy trying to discharge all that recharged potential difference.  And IF, in so doing, we were also able to measure some energy being dissipated at the load - and IF the sum of that energy dissipated exceeded the sum of wattage first delivered by that flow of current moving with the full force of all that voltage - then we'd PROVE OUR THESIS.

Which is what we did.  And what we MEASURED was a COP>17.  Now.  That's pretty extraordinary.  We tried very hard to get this to our local academics to evaluate the measured evidence.  But they - understandably - would have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.  We held a demonstration of this in the conference rooms of Coopers and Lybrand.  Two academics attended that demonstration - SAW the measurements - and, a certain Professor Green - now retired - stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that, notwithstanding there's PROBABLY a measurement error.  And forever thereafter he REFUSED to evaluate that circuit apparatus - or do his own experiments.  IT WAS DISMISSED.  Rather in the way that Poynty et al are trying to DISMISS the evidence.

It is very important to them that this proposal of a particle in a magnetic field - DOES NOT GAIN TRACTION.  Because that concept would put paid to every outstanding paradox in our standard model.  And it would then put paid to the continued need for our fossil or nuclear fuel to power our rather extensive energy needs.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
My dear MileHigh,

....IF
we made any errors in our previous 'first generation' - so to speak, tests, then that error was shared by top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES - all of whom were directly involved in experimentation.

I left out another possibility.

IF I was lying about this prior involvement - and AS this allegation of their involvement has been so WIDELY advertised on the internet - then I would, by now, have been in receipt of written notification from all those companies to RETRACT these statements - or I'd be facing a damages claim that would impoverish me together with a criminal action that I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND.

I am NOT THAT RECKLESS. I am not MISREPRESENTING anything.  That's yours and Poynty Point's particular speciality together with a host of others who NEED, most urgently, to cast doubt on these facts.

Again, kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

I've removed the most of this post to use later.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: The Boss on February 05, 2012, 12:13:21 AM
 
The address to the blog that Rosemary is imploring you not to read is:
 
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html (http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html)
 
The Boss
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 05, 2012, 04:42:44 AM
Guys,

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

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

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

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 05, 2012, 07:13:39 AM

The address to the blog that Rosemary is imploring you not to read is:
 
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html (http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html)
 
The Boss

At last.  And to think I nearly missed this.  And hello to you too.   I most certainly am NOT imploring anyone to avoid reading your blog.  I LOVE it.  It's richly entertaining.  Where have you misconstrued this?  I've taken the trouble to post links to it - early in this thread.  It is an enduring tribute to the mindless obsessions that you're all afflicted with.  It's rich with comedy.  And I love comedy.  I read it avidly, DAILY.

I only mentioned, in passing, that the degree of malice that leaks out all over the place, is somewhat disproportionate when you consider that I'm only a rather old lady afflicted with insufficient schooling and a heavily challenged intellect.  If we didn't know better we'd be inclined to assume that what I write actually MATTERS.  Which I'm sure is NOT your intention.  But that's the hell of it.  The more you write about me, the more people will read about me. And the most of them are certainly NOT inclined to be taken in by your rather UNPROFESSIONAL and INTEMPERATE display of  traducement and slander.  There are 'thinking' readers who are also increasingly aware of your agenda.  And I see that the crisis ESCALATES.  All this good news about the E-cat.  It must be KILLING you.  Every now and again one of your employees tries to throw some mud in that general direction.  But they're not managing a good argument.  The best was from Professor Steven E Jones, who recommended that we ignore those results because Rossi wouldn't engage in a discussion with him?   That reason lacks a certain strength.

Anyway.  Just to let you know.  I'm enormously flattered at the continued interest in my work - albeit that you don't seem to entirely approve of my efforts.  And I'm enormously grateful that there is that blog at all.  Else how could I justify my claim that you poor trolls are not only cowardly criminals  - who hide behind the security of your anonymity - but that you indulge in a level of discussion that is less than intelligent.  Your blog is all that I need by way of example.  And in as much as it's a running commentary on everything that I write - then it's a kind of 'endorsement' - albeit not always that flattering.  Great fun though. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
By the way
 
Just as an aside (JAAA)  8) I do hope I haven't missed any other of your posts.  I LOVE this kind of engagement.  It reminds me to remind everyone that - albeit just on the internet - you actually do have an existence.  Which also means that there are people out there who are really, REALLY worried about our claim.  Otherwise, I'm reasonably satisfied that you'd have lost interest in my ramblings - some time back.  I would have thought?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 06:52:49 AM
Guys, I'm busy downloading the most of this thread to my blogspot - and have just seen that my confusions related to this post were that I assumed that he was asking me to argue this in terms his own rather pretentious little 'paper' as he calls it.  Such a PERFECT example of all that BOMBAST and his own CONFUSED SCIENCE ACCORDING TO POYNTY POINT - and, even more to the point, NOTA BENE.  He is stipulating the CONDITIONS to that award.  I'll comment as required. 

The essential message is this:
You will note the word 'ESSENTIAL". :o   Loaded with importance.  Golly.

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you
THERE IT IS GUYS.  A NEW and entirely unrelated condition required for his prize - that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  What, in essence he is now negotiating is this.  IF is pass this test, and IF I show some basic understanding of a rather elementary question related to equally elementary power analysis - THEN ONLY WILL HE CONSIDER ALLOWING ME TO DEMONSTRATE OUR DEVICE.  The kindest thing to say about this is that it represents a GROSS VIOLATION OF HIS OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATED TO CLAIMING HIS PRIZE.  Not only is it an arbitrary GROSSLY IRRELEVANT condition - BUT IT ALSO calls to question the competence of those of us who wrote that paper which, AT BEST, is SLANDEROUS.

That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY.
AND THEN THIS.  Note - again.   I need to show that I understand the polarity of the power assigned to the battery?  whatever that means, as it CONFLICTS WITH THE VOLAGE that's DROPPED over LOAD - whatever that means, and then he demands to know 'WHY'?  ::)

Which all is closely followed by this  rather pompous piece of work where he says ...
I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense.
which means that I MAY NOT REFERENCE A SWITCHED CIRCUIT IN MY REPLY. 

And then this.....
If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.
He DEMANDS THAT I SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY?  And this from a man who is trying to advance that voltage is 'dropped' across the load resistor - as a result of current flow from the battery supply - which is then also consistent with the polarity of THAT LOAD RESISTOR's VOLTAGE?  THIS IS ABSOLUTE UNADULTERATED AND ENDURING CLAPTRAP.  It is PROFOUNDLY wrong.  It is to science - what the SPANISH INQUISITION WAS to REASON and EVIDENCE.  Which, AT BEST, is an abuse of all good sense and violation of all good science.  WHY DO YOU GUYS NOT SEE THIS?  WHERE ARE YOU BUBBA?  GRAVITYBLOCK? - SCHUBERT? .... - EVERYONE?  Is Poynty allowed to indulge these eccentric philosophies in the adjudication of any claim for prize?  I guess so.  Because it is, AFTER ALL, his prize.  LOL.  What a JOKE

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory and power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.
And then this.  Rather conveniently - this CRITERIA is now applied to my collaborators.  We're all expected to RALLY and apply this extraordinary abuse to standard measurement protocols in order to first QUALIFY for a DISCUSSION of our results.  We must first conform to Poynty Point's eccentric mathematics and quixotic physics - UPEND known protocols as forged by our Greats and as applied by the entire scientific fraterntiy - and apply a variation which will ENSURE that not we, nor anyone ever again, in immediate or distant future - QUALIFY for their prize.  And that way.  It's a BREEZE.  NO-ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO CLAIM OVER UNITY.  LOL.

And then all this is followed with the earnest proposal that the amount of energy delivered b the battery supply is a NEGATIVE wattage.  And the amount of energy dissipated at the load is a POSITIVE wattage.  Actually he may have claimed it the other way around.  Either way.  It's just so WRONG that it's LAUGHABLE.  WELL.  I PUT IT TO YOU ALL that if this is what you members, here or on Poynty's forum see as being a valid scientific proposal - then these FORUMS are REALLY on a HIDING TO HELL.  And then.  God help us all.

From this point onwards - and UNLESS this is addressed - then there is clear evidence that not only are the members of his forum ENTIRELY DISQUALIFIED FROM ANY FURTHER COMMENT RELATED TO POWER MEASUREMENT - but that - for some reason - THERE IS THE IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT to apply utterly faulted measurements to the analysis of power.  Which means that they are - all of them - either UNABLE TO DO POWER ANALYSIS - or they are COMPLICIT in their requirement to DENY OUR EVIDENCE ON ANY ILLOGICAL, UNFOUNDED AND UNSCIENTIFIC BASES - AS REQUIRED. 

And MileHigh and Poynty SERIOUSLY propose that the readers here 'side' with Poynty Point and all this absurdity?  WHAT A JOKE.

I PUT IT TO YOU POYNTY POINT and to all those who ENDORSE THIS COMPUTATION INCLUDING AS IT SEEMS ALL THE MEMBERS ON POYNTY'S FORUM.  The correct evaluation of that circuit is 250 watts delivered by the battery  250 watts dissipated at the resistor.  And NEITHER NUMBER CARRY ANY NEGATIVE POLARITY AT ALL.  And IF you try and argue this - then go and argue it with the Professors at Harvard who write your text books.  They'll put you right.

R (regards)
R (rosie pose)

Much editing for emphasis - mainly.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 07:34:12 AM
I'm reposting this - for PERFECT CLARITY.  AT THIS STAGE WE ONLY HAD EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF a coefficient of performance (COP)>17 AND WE NOW HAVE MEASURED AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF INFINITE COP

My dear MileHigh,

....IF
we made any errors in our previous 'first generation' - so to speak, tests, then that error was shared by top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES - all of whom were directly involved in experimentation.

I left out another possibility.

IF I was lying about this prior involvement - and AS this allegation of their involvement has been so WIDELY advertised on the internet - then I would, by now, have been in receipt of written notification from all those companies to RETRACT these statements - or I'd be facing a damages claim that would impoverish me together with a criminal action that I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND.

I am NOT THAT RECKLESS. I am not MISREPRESENTING anything.  That's yours and Poynty Point's particular speciality together with a host of others who NEED, most urgently, to cast doubt on these facts.

Again, kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

I've removed the most of this post to use later.
added the fact that we now have measured evidence of an infinite co-efficient of performance.  And I highlighted it in Red - to emphasise this.
 8) :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 06, 2012, 11:43:58 PM
Rosemary, your last posts demonstrate that you STILL do not understand the difference between power and energy. After all this time, that's really sad. I challenge you YET AGAIN to measure my TinselKoil in exactly the same way that you measure your circuit and see what you come up with.

And I see that you are still making claims about " top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES " -- claims that you have never been able to substantiate. I'll remind you and your readers that some of these companies have been contacted in the past couple years concerning your claims... and they never heard of you. Let's see your documentation of these supposed tests. If your invention is so great and was confirmed by all these power engineering companies...... why aren't they using your invention? Oh... wait..... your "invention" isn't an invention at all.... it's just a simple mosfet switching circuit, naively cobbled together and incompetently measured, and does nothing of interest to real engineers at all.

You have had ample opportunity over the years to produce documentation of the testing you refer to above... but you can't, because it doesn't exist.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 07, 2012, 12:02:04 AM
http://www.isotest.es/web/Soporte/Formacion/Notas%20de%20aplicacion/TEKTRONIX/DPO4000/MEDIDAS%20EN%20POWER%20SUPPLY%20DPO4000.pdf (http://www.isotest.es/web/Soporte/Formacion/Notas%20de%20aplicacion/TEKTRONIX/DPO4000/MEDIDAS%20EN%20POWER%20SUPPLY%20DPO4000.pdf)

Did the information in this publication help you, Rosemary? Do you even understand the issues?
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: chessnyt on February 07, 2012, 03:09:22 AM
@Rosemary:
I stumbled upon this post from another forum today and quite by accident.  The thread was about an open letter to Peter Lindemann in relation to Stanley Meyer technology. 
 
"I was the first to show over 1.0 cop with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit,
which it is over 1.0 cop. I showed both overunity AND over 1.0 cop.
I did this not only with a 10,000 sample per screen sample with exported
data to a spreadsheet to prove the #'s, I also did it with battery draw
down tests showing MORE joules of work in heat produced that what left
the battery. The protocols that I followed ARE the protocols that were
designed by British Petroleum (BP) to validate and certify her original tests.
I didn't get 17cop they BP certified, but enough to prove the concept
is valid." -- Aaron (Energetic Forum)

It seems that people everywhere have great things to say about you, Rosemary  ;)   I must concur.
 
 
Warmest regards,
 
Chess
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 04:11:07 AM
@Rosemary:
I stumbled upon this post from another forum today and quite by accident.  The thread was about an open letter to Peter Lindemann in relation to Stanley Meyer technology. 
 
"I was the first to show over 1.0 cop with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit,
which it is over 1.0 cop. I showed both overunity AND over 1.0 cop.
I did this not only with a 10,000 sample per screen sample with exported
data to a spreadsheet to prove the #'s, I also did it with battery draw
down tests showing MORE joules of work in heat produced that what left
the battery. The protocols that I followed ARE the protocols that were
designed by British Petroleum (BP) to validate and certify her original tests.
I didn't get 17cop they BP certified, but enough to prove the concept
is valid." -- Aaron (Energetic Forum)

It seems that people everywhere have great things to say about you, Rosemary  ;)   I must concur.
 
 
Warmest regards,
 
Chess

Thanks Chess. 
Actually - the truth is that this technology of ours has been the target of an attack from hell - orchestrated by some experimenters who played the 'friendship' card when they were actually intent on pulling the plug.  I was SERIOUSLY duped.  They did a good job though.  But history has a way of presenting the actual facts.  It may take a while.  But we'll get there eventually.

In any event Chess.  The facts are that there is NOTHING in our technology that could compete with Rossi's.  We're working on a '4th generation' schematic - that may just be more exploitable.  But needless to say that is NOT going Open Source.  Certainly NOT until these forums are cleaned up.

Kindest regards,
Rosie 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 04:53:29 AM
TK - ANOTHER post.  Golly.  You really are rather obsessed with this thread.  It seems you're always THERE.  LURKING.  LOL

Rosemary, your last posts demonstrate that you STILL do not understand the difference between power and energy. After all this time, that's really sad. I challenge you YET AGAIN to measure my TinselKoil in exactly the same way that you measure your circuit and see what you come up with.
I'll pass on this little measurement of your circuit TK.  It's just way too boring. And you're complaining about MY protocols?  Have you seen Poynty's?  They're decidedly more adventurous than the rather tame evidence in our own tests.  Power and Energy - and niceties of expression?  I'm not sure that they're strictly apposite to the discussion with Poynt Point.  My only concern is that Poynty seems to think that a battery DELIVERS a negative current flow resulting in a NEGATIVE wattage.  Very confusing.  You'll need to explain things to him.  Don't worry too much about me.  I've got my collaborators to keep me on track. And it only matters that our paper is correct.

And I see that you are still making claims about " top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES " -- claims that you have never been able to substantiate. I'll remind you and your readers that some of these companies have been contacted in the past couple years concerning your claims... and they never heard of you.
Yes.  I remember something about this.  I believe one of the collaborators took the trouble to phone ABB Research in SOUTH Carolina - knowing full well that I dealt with ABB research in North Carolina.  I advised all and sundry to contact a Professor Gaunt at UCT to confirm the existence of that SASOL bursary award.  For some reason they declined.  Now.  One of the reasons that ABB Research (NC) may not have FULL record of those tests of ours - is possibly because the CEO (can't recall his name off hand), a technician - Eddie Tarnow (I think was his name) and a certain Colin Bowler - who were involved in those tests, were variously 'sacked' or put on early retirement - within 3 months of those results coming out.  And it is in the light of this rather draconian reaction to this accreditation that they were involved with - that I am MOST reluctant to advise you about the names of any of the others who are - to the best of my knowledge - still employed in those companies.  God forbid that they too endure that kind of consequence - simply because they accredited some results.  But I do have the security of their ALL their 'written permissions' to reference those accreditations.  If i did not - then I'd have no leg to stand on - should they try and get me to retract those claims.

Regarding my reluctance to EVER disclose the names of those academics that I have EVER been associated with - is simply because these forums are a cesspool - and it would take no time at all for them to be DISGRACED - in the way that Fleischman and Pons were disgraced.  Not exactly fair.  And frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  Under usual circumstances, when someone professes something - in writing - then it's believed UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.  For some reason you all seem to assume that all presentations are LIES until DISPROVED.  Which is NOT how our legal system works.  And the fact that you ASSUME lies is because you - all of you detractors - seem to be more familiar with this use than with its alternatives.  Frankly - I'm just not clever enough to lie.  I'd need to remember them all.  And at my age - my memory is NOT dependable.

Let's see your documentation of these supposed tests. If your invention is so great and was confirmed by all these power engineering companies...... why aren't they using your invention? Oh... wait..... your "invention" isn't an invention at all.... it's just a simple mosfet switching circuit, naively cobbled together and incompetently measured, and does nothing of interest to real engineers at all.
Yes.  I suppose you could rely on that as an explanation.  I would have thought that its more in line with the need to get validation of these results through our academics.  God knows.  SASOL actively promoted this.  But to no avail.  :'(   And I'm also trying to progress this.  But it's uphill.  The problem is that they won't even look at a demonstration.  Which means we're pretty well stymied.  At least until our paper is published.
 
You have had ample opportunity over the years to produce documentation of the testing you refer to above... but you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Golly.  I've got MOUNTAINS of documentation.  What are you talking about?

Anyway TK - Thanks for this post.  It's always a pleasure.  It gives me ENDLESS scope to represent - not only historical facts - but the reminder to our readers that we've got this blow away technology.  Nothing near as excellent as Rossi's work.  But HOLD YOUR HORSES guys.  Who knows WHAT is yet to come?

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on February 07, 2012, 06:11:43 AM
Rosemary,
For the record, I think that your circuit does work (at least I believe that YOU believe it does). I have a difficult time picturing someone with such a depth of knowledge about electronics also being totally absent of knowledge about how to measure a circuit properly.
Your 'little drawings' say a lot more than most of the posts on this thread, truth be told. If I had a million dollars I would certainly test it myself. Heck, I would fly down and take a look at your circuit in person if that were the case... I STILL say there is a mobius configuration in there!
To come wading into this 'cesspool' time and again to fight your fight is either fanciful delusion that this forum feeds, or you know that you are RIGHT (at least from your point of view, granted). There is also the posibility that you are WRONG. I don't think you are lying, that just seems a little stupid for someone with a brain. The idea that you have some ulterior motive by posting a circuit here just to be ridiculed just doesn't makes much sense to me either.
Unless you're nuts.
Your comment about the pajamas proved to me that your aren't.
If your circuit works then get it out there however you can.... Not sure this is the place to do that, but public forums are great for finding people of similar interests. Sounds like you've tried to get the right people involved (at least the IEEE anyways).
If I was an 'academic', I'm not sure I would post on this forum so you do have a point there... Not sure how many 'highly educated' people actually frequent this particular forum. You do see the occasional 'nutball' fly through, I'll have to admit...
Mostly I just wanted to say that I was wrong; You shouldn't throw in the towel. Well... Maybe throw in the towel on trying to convice certain folks around here... I haven't read your blogs, and only understood half your paper, so I'm still not really qualified to give an opinion on the matter... Love reading your posts BTW!

Forgive the minor intrusion, I'll just sit back (again) and see what happens along with everyone else! ;)

Seriously, best wishes Rosemary!

Derrick

EDIT: That pdf on scope measurements will keep me busy when I get one eventually...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 09:33:52 AM
Hi Derrick,  It took a while to get back in here.  I WISH Harti would attend to this.  There's something SERIOUSLY wrong with his software.  Every now and then it goes into a loop back mode where I can't get out of the 'home page'.  And I know that there are others have the same problem.  Thanks for the encouragement.  But I really need to stress this.  The reason that I work on these forums is because this is really the 'seed bed' of technologies that need to stay open source.  And the reason I've gone to these extraordinary lengths to REFUTE those DISCLAIMERS - is that IF we don't, then as day follows night - our new technologies will be shrouded in perpetual mystery - which is a HIGHLY exploitable condition for our monopolists.

Here's a kind of analogy.  You remember how 'GOOD ART' was confined to acknowledged schools.  Out of that school then art was irrelevant.  Then came along a whole bunch of 'rebels' who 'usurped' that art AWAY from those so called 'experts' and DID THEIR OWN THING.  That's the Van Gogh's and even the Edvard Munch's of this world.  And today there is 'modern art' that realises considerably more marketable value than our classicists - our David's and such like.  Well.  It's my considered opinion that the same thing is happening in our sciences.  What a whole bunch of people are now doing is challenging our current paradigms related to physics.  And this is resulting in a WELCOME ENGAGEMENT by a really wide and representative body of our public.  Even amongst the so called 'experts' - those trained in physics - there's a schism that is as as wild and wide and broad and deep - and just as unbridgeable or impassable - as the Great Canyon.  Everyone's off at a tangent - trying to find the 'solution' - not only to our energy crisis - but to all those PARADOXES that dog our classicists.  Schism is EVERYWHERE.  And the two 'strongest' schools that are clouting each other for recognition - are our String theorists versus our Quantum and Classical theorists.  We, the lay public - are not aware of the niceties of that argument - but we're aware of all that doubt that's associated with science.  We certainly KNOW - with growing alarm - that our scientists DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.   

Now.  Back to these forums where we're 'fed' - as a general daily reminder - like prayers at an assembly - is the need to DEFER to classical theory.  And here's the essence of that 'schism'.  The classicist CLAIMS that our four forces - are also a FULL DESCRIPTION OF EVERYTHING.  And on the other hand, we have our String theorists who CLAIM that our FOUR FORCES are only an expression of A 5th and HIDDEN FORCE.  AND, while the most of us are not aware of the niceties, as I mentioned, we sure as HELL know where these questions are pointing.  This means that - IF indeed, those four forces are NOT THE FULL ARGUMENT - then we should, by rights question all those thermodynamic constraints that they REQUIRE.   And it is my fond belief that these forums are a DIRECT RESULT of that RIGHT TO QUESTION. 

BUT, by the same token, IF we allow that continued daily DIET based on the argument that NOTHING CAN EXCEED THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES, then we'll be starved out of the required engagement in this new science.  These new paradigms.  Which are being forged, even as we speak.  But more critically, if we do NOT engage - on a hands on basis - with all the experimental and experiential evidence that we can muster - then we - the LAY PUBLIC will again lose touch with the essentials of our own logic - required to find our own reasons - and we'll DEFER to the so called EXPERT to progress our science.  And history as taught us WELL.  When they USURP that authority to do our thinking for us - then they ALSO engineer that science to their own best advantage.  And that has not, historically, established the greatest good for the greatest number.

And I have long been intimately aware of the gross abuses of the so called 'authority' that is flaunted on these forums.  They have managed to systematically DISMISS every experimental evidence of OVER UNITY that has ever dared present itself here.  And the worst of it is this.  It is done with a SUPREME disregard to even the ESSENCE OF ACKNOWLEDGED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.  It is no ACCIDENT - that Poynty forged those multiple and confusing ACRONYMS to support his arguments.  In other words - to put it bluntly - there has been a over use of some rather contemptible, and less than scientific analyses applied to some highly credible evidence - all managed with a disgraceful abuse of our required scientific standards in order to CONFUSE those members who actively engage here.  And they've got away with it for FAR TOO LONG.  It makes not one iota of difference to our own claim.  But I can ONLY with any authority at all - ARGUE OUR OWN CLAIM.  Which is why it is topical to this thread.  But the problem is far, far wider.  It's as rampant as a plague - and it won't be stopped until someone stands up and confronts them.  Then it can get some much needed fresh air - some much needed medication - before we can reclaim the purpose of these forums.  And I am ENTIRELY committed to OPEN SOURCE.  Which means that I must, unfortunately, also confront some strong personalities that have rather dominated 'popular opinion' to the detriment of science and our own best interests - especially as it relates to our need for CLEAN AND GREEN. And I intend remaining uncredentialed PRECISELY so that I can belong to this new and emerging school that is NOT dependent on those classical conclusions.

I hope this post won't be construed as a rant.  It's meant to be a red alert.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on February 07, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Rosemary,
I agree that this should be open-source stuff. Anything that benefits the human race should be available to everyone everywhere.The 'Franklin Stove' building instructions were given away by Ben because it was the most efficient wood stove design at the time. The more minds working on these problems means better success in finding solutions to those problems.
Absolutely agree that scientists don't know everything and that current EM theory doesn't explain everything. I might post my thoughts on that someday, probably not here though... Unless I discover something that can't be explained away or easily dismissed because it isn't readily explainable (or understandable!) Paradox is everywhere, agreed.
How many people believe that when you flip a light switch to the 'ON' position electrons 'run' up the wires and burn up as light when they hit the filament? Somehow a photon came out of there right? You can show me the math and graphs and try to explain that instant all day long, but to me, THAT is magic because I know that the electron is still there and can do it again!!!
Coral Castle (Coral Gate, FL) didn't build itself and E. Leedskalnin definitely did NOT agree with modern academia even though he understood more than a lot of those people because rather than reading a book and taking it for granted, he tried some experiments of his own and ??? Invented (or re-invented more likely) the PMH. Take a look on the net and you'll find his work. The pamphlets he wrote are an...um... interesting read to say the least.
Stand up and fight for what you believe is right.
We put voltage/current down a wire, create this vortex of power/energy (sounds funny but it spins around the wire, right?) around the wire, then just take the power back out of the wire and forget the vortex we created. Dumb, dumb, dumb... Yeah, most people don't really get it. Red alert is genemod food, 9-11, Patriot act... Oh, you live in SA... Nevermind. Red alert is everywhere
Cheers!
Derrick
P.S. Sorry if I forgot to tick off all your points, but I 'm short on time (gotta go to work)!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 08:22:24 PM
Guys I'm posting this across in case it's missed by the readers of our thread.  We're now getting into a conversation with Professor Steven E Jones.  This is the start of a few posts to follow
 
Hello Professor, 

I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm.  I was beginning to think that you were deliberately ignoring our claim as you do poor Itseung's.  Anyway.  Let me see if I can put this as clearly as possible - mainly because I think clarity's important.  Wouldn't you agree?

Now.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is.  It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso.  On other tests we only manage to take the temperature of the element resistor to something that's mildly uncomfortable to the touch.  Not the kind of precision that I suspect you're looking for.  But that's not the thrust of our question.  As mentioned, I'm anxious to find out how you actually calculate the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery.  Here's our problem.  We are applying standard measurement protocols.  And for the life of us we cannot find any evidence of any energy at all - being delivered by those batteries.  Which leaves us with that rather puzzling anomaly of INFINITE COP.  Not  easily explained in terms of the standard model - unless, of course,  there are measurement errors.

WELL.  Here's the thing.  Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis.  If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker.  But what do I know. So.  What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG.  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak.  Actually that's possibly tautological.   :o   In any event.  You know what I mean.  Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number.  And our claim will be defeated at the get go.  Actually, come to think of it.  ANYONE AT ALL - who ever tries to prove over unity in the future - and under these unconventional measurement conventions - will ALSO, inevitably, be left with something CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN UNITY. 

Please do clarify this.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 08:26:08 PM
  I certainly agree with this, Rose:
OK, so we're focussing for now on the Input power of your device; that's fine.

I certainly agree with you here, Rose:
  On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link. 
(Sorry to ask if you already provided it and I've missed it.)  Perhaps this discussion will enlighten Lawrence too -- all of us!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 08:44:32 PM
COPIED OVER.  I couldn't manage that 'nested' post number.  The best I could do with it.  Anyway.  One more post to follow and then the argument's on track.

Dear Professor,

Regarding this question - so that we're on the same page so to speak, where you asked...
On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link.

And this in answer to my own question where I asked...
Hello Professor, 

WELL.  Here's the thing.  Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis.  If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker.  But what do I know. So.  What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG.  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

This was the ANSWER ACCORDING TO POYNTY'S REVISED PHYSICS
You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.

Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.

Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor. So we have:

PRLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:

PVBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)

So the answers to the question are:

a) Battery Power = -250W
b) RLOAD Power = 250W

Understood? Agreed?

Which in turn was detailed by Poynty Point in this post on my own thread...THERE IT IS.  IN BLACK AND WHITE.  Actually.  I've taken the trouble to 'highlight' his argument in red.  ::)

Now here's the thing.  Here's where we find ourselves between the Devil and the deep blue sea - as they say.  Where we're skewered.  On the horns of a dilemma.  Trapped between a rock and a hard place.  You get the drift?  It's because your prize is 'hooked' somehow to Poynty's prize at OUR.com.  And Poynty Point has insisted that unless I and my collaborators FIRST commit the unpardonable HERESY of CONCEDING THAT THE BATTERY IN THE FOLLOWING SCHEMATIC IS DELIVERING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE?  :o ?  :o ?  8) ?  :-[   then he WON'T EVEN TALK TO US - LET ALONE CONSIDER OUR CLAIM FOR A PRIZE? 

NOT ONLY THAT - but he also reserves the right to USE that method as an alternate convention in analysing our tests.  :o   And you see for yourself?  It's a parody of logic.  An abuse of science as taught by our esteemed and revered.  A rebuttal of the logic forged by our Greats.  A challenge to and a criticism of the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC FRATERNITY who require that convention determines the wattage delivered by the battery is POSITIVE. 

NOW.  IF indeed, he is allowed this rather, as I've described it 'QUIXOTIC' measurement's convention - then we will NEVER be able to argue that our results are OVER UNITY.  You see why I trust?  Because where we would NORMALLY compute a negative wattage, where even our little LeCroy Oscilloscope computes a negative wattage in measuring our test results - then - IN THE FLICK OF AN EYE - at the WAVE OF A WAND - Poynty Point will change our NEGATIVE WATTAGE MEASUREMENTS in our own experimental results TO POSITIVE.   :o Which means we'll have no gain at all.  Which is somewhat troubling.  And if you ENDORSE this 'convention' then you too would be able to deny us.  Which is not actually playing 'fair'.

Again.  Please comment.  I'll try and download that schematic again - lest we lose sight of where he's applying this utterly INSANE protocol.  And lest you think that my own delusions are that rampant that I've misconstrued his argument.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 08:51:50 PM
Guys, this is the last post.  Now just awaiting a reply.
And here's the link to the thread where this was copied.  I'm hoping we can continue the conversation here - but it's unlikely.  In which case, if you're following this, perhaps just dip in there.  It will be interesting to see how this dilemma is resolved.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
http://www.overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/msg311943/#new


And Professor,

Regarding that post of mine - you'll see that I've avoided mention of the science 'behind' the established protocol.  I could, I suppose, rabbit on about the fact that the direction of current flow is determined by the polarity of the applied voltage.  And I could also explain that the voltage induced across a load resistor is in anti phase with the potential difference from the supply.  But the truth is that I've argued this through 27 pages on my own thread where every mention of it was IGNORED.  And I'm rather concerned that should I try and argue those rather elementary facts - then they'll be ignored again.  So what I've done now - is SIMPLY present Poynt's argument - IF such it is - and I'll let you deal with it as best you can.  Possibly there's something that not only I, but the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has overlooked.

And as Poynty Point has argued.  'Who cares?'  What does it matter?  What difference would it make if I merely argued science?  He's bound to be believed over any argument that I present -  because he's got 27 years of experience in electronics under his belt.  I've puzzled over that poynt of his - that 'justification'.  I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant.  You see.  What's at question has NOTHING to do with electronics and EVERYTHING to do with elementary power analysis.  And from where I sit - he needs to do a refresher course here.  Unless, of course, he's deliberately misleading us all.  Which I hope is NOT the case.

Again, regards, and as ever
Rosie 
edited - for clarity.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 07, 2012, 09:56:07 PM
Rosemary, what is the difference between power and energy?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on February 07, 2012, 11:26:33 PM
Rosemary:

I think .99 is getting a negative voltage from the battery due to Kirchoff.  Kirchhoff's voltage law:

The sum of all the voltages around the loop is equal to zero.

If you take .99's circuit, you only have 2 devices going around the loop.  If you call the voltage across the resistor  +50 volts, then the voltage across the battery must be -50 volts in order to add up to zero and not violate Kirchoff.

Bubba
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: ramset on February 07, 2012, 11:29:48 PM
Rosey
Is this your company in South Africa selling 5KW --60KW units to Sterling Allen ?
 
HMMMM ?
 
http://pesn.com/2012/02/07/9602034_Fund_Drive_for_S._Africa_Trip_to_See_New_Number_1_Free_Energy_Technology/ (http://pesn.com/2012/02/07/9602034_Fund_Drive_for_S._Africa_Trip_to_See_New_Number_1_Free_Energy_Technology/)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 01:14:42 AM
How can anyone be so gullible?

It's very obvious that free energy cannot be achieved because it is impossible. 

You should review this and get educated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equations)

I've noticed that you're rather fixated on this repetitive post of yours.  I'm not sure that I, or anyone I know - has EVER subscribed to FREE ENERGY.  I am NOT AT ALL SURE WHAT YOU'RE ON ABOUT.  If you need to teach this - which is clearly some kind of overwhelming compulsion - then can I ask you to find another thread?  In fact, go to another forum.  No-one in their RIGHT MINDS WOULD SUBSCRIBE TO FREE ENERGY.  Whatever next?

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 01:17:37 AM
Rosey
Is this your company in South Africa selling 5KW --60KW units to Sterling Allen ?
 
HMMMM ?
 
http://pesn.com/2012/02/07/9602034_Fund_Drive_for_S._Africa_Trip_to_See_New_Number_1_Free_Energy_Technology/ (http://pesn.com/2012/02/07/9602034_Fund_Drive_for_S._Africa_Trip_to_See_New_Number_1_Free_Energy_Technology/)

Nothing to do with us - SADLY.  What fun.  I'll wait for morning - some 7 hours away - and see if I can learn more. 

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 01:38:48 AM
TK - Why do you go on and on and on ... about this?

Rosemary, what is the difference between power and energy?
I have absolutely NO idea how to answer it in any abbreviated form that would be appropriate for these posts.  WHAT energy are you talking about?  From the top of my head I know there's chemical energy - magnetic energy  - nuclear energy.  There's energy of mass.  There's radiant energy.  And I don't think I've even skimmed the surface.  And Power - as I understand it - is the rate at which any one of those various types of energy is transferred.   Now. Let's see if YOU can answer a question.  WHY DO YOU ASK?  Is it because you ASSUME that I don't have an answer?  Is this some kind of 'test' where you can gauge my competence?  Are you satisfied that you can LURK in the background - and then impose these irrelevancies on this thread?

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 01:48:04 AM
Guys, it seems that Professor Steven E Jones is going to FIRST make a study of this thread to get more familiar with the question.  What alarms me is that the thread is now some 30 odd pages long.  Which means that we're due to wait for some considerable time before that SIMPLE question of mine is EVER ANSWERED.  And the worst of it is that this question is more or less the ONLY subject of contention from the inception of my dialogue - if it can even be described as a dialogue  - with Poynty Point.

Why this ALARMS me is that I've had to wait a whole month before acknowledgement of our claim for his prize.  And then a week with STILL no acknowledgement of the previous posting of my link.  And - like as not - he'll now NOT BE ABLE TO FIND HIS WAY HERE - notwithstanding.  So.  I'ts a waiting game.  Which irritates me more than I can say.  It seems he can access any thread at any forum - at EASE.  But for some reason is is ENTIRELY UNAWARE OF THIS ONE and I've now posted 2 LINKS in his own thread.  As I've said before.  It gets curiouser and curiouser.

And Bubba - I'm not even going to answer your proposal.  That's not an explanation.  That's an excuse.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 08, 2012, 01:51:34 AM
Rose:
 
Quote
And - like as not - he'll now NOT BE ABLE TO FIND HIS WAY HERE - notwithstanding.

I found my way here.
But yes, it will take me a bit of time to catch up so I can comment properly. 

Believe it or not, my own work keeps me fairly busy...  but I hope to contribute.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 02:00:41 AM
Rose:
 
I found my way here.
But yes, it will take me a bit of time to catch up so I can comment properly. 

Believe it or not, my own work keeps me fairly busy...  but I hope to contribute.

Dear Professor,

I am DELIGHTED to welcome you to this thread.  At LAST.  Now.  You'll see for yourself that there is only one question outstanding.  Poynty Point has gone to some lengths to assure us that he won't consider our prize unless and until we CONCEDE that he can REPRESENT our energy delivered by the battery - as a negative wattage.   IF he does this then he DEFEATS our CLAIM and any other claim that may be  associated with any switching circuit.  AND then he would NEVER need to part with his prize. 

Now.  That's the argument.  I'm not sure how MUCH more you need to read than that.  But you'll simply see him saying this over, and over and over - through the entire thread from page 3 or thereby.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on February 08, 2012, 02:14:31 AM
Well if we consider the term Horse Power/HP, can we not say that that a certain amount of Energy can be extracted and used from a device that has (x)HP output  over time.  ;]
Or can we say, if we have a certain amount of Horse Energy/HE, we will have a certain amount of Power available for use. ;]

 :o

Mags

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 02:17:13 AM
Well if we consider the term Horse Power/HP, can we not say that that a certain amount of Energy can be extracted and used from a device that has (x)HP output  over time.  ;]
Or can we say, if we have a certain amount of Horse Energy/HE, we will have a certain amount of Power available for use. ;]

 :o

Mags

LOL  Thanks for this Mags.  I've FINALLY had a laugh.

Kindest and best as ever
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 02:21:23 AM
Rosemary, you do not even understand simple physics or how to take proper electrical measurements.

Electricity is when the electrons from positive ions move to negative ions.  No electrons are lost or created.  It is no different than the heat moving from hot water to cold.  Once in equilibrium, they cannot be separated unless work is applied.  I already know that your process does not work without looking at it.

My dear Replaced,

What can I say?  Your argument is INVINCIBLE.  And your assumptions LAUDABLE.  Well done indeed.

Regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 02:44:00 AM
If you think that whatever contraption you made does work when in reality it does not, then you could be suffering from delusions.  You should go see a psychiatrist to possibly be prescribed psychotropic medication.

I've now had a real laugh.  Thanks for this.  It's HUGELY important that you share your opinions.  They're clearly very well considered.  And refreshingly 'to the point'.  If I have a criticism it's possibly that you 'hold back'.  You should really learn to let rip.  Speak your mind.   And I assure you - you're NOT ALONE in those assumptions of yours.  There's a whole blog dedicated to precisely this subject.

The very best of the kindest and best, as ever,
Rosie Pose 
 ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on February 08, 2012, 02:52:58 AM
 ;)    Its one of my dirty little nursery rhymes.  :o

And dont waist your time with Replaced. He believes that every angle has been tried in the past looking for FE, and that none of us are creative enough to go beyond what is already known..  Talk about being stuck in the 80's

Such a tiny box to be in.  :o    And it must be lonely.  :o ;) ;D

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on February 08, 2012, 02:57:05 AM
If you think that whatever contraption you made does work when in reality it does not, then you could be suffering from delusions.  You should go see a psychiatrist to possibly be prescribed psychotropic medication.

Sounds like Mile High to me.   :o ;)


Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on February 08, 2012, 03:17:27 AM
Well what if we have heard it all before and we are not really interested in hearing it again, how would that grab ya?

What if we dont care?  Then again, why do you?  Thats the kicker.

Why is it that you feel the need to throw all this"weve heard it all before" across these pages?

Its your duty? Or is it your job?  Probably.  Only someone who needs a an aderal would embark on that lonely journey on their own.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bob Smith on February 08, 2012, 03:46:32 AM
Hi Rosie,
Glad to see you're keeping a sense of humour about some of these remarks. Tho' not a daily follower of this thread, I do drop in from time to time, and have enjoyed your work since it first began appearing. I have to say I've been intrigued by your emergent paradigm for understanding our electrical universe, and the potential pathways through a rather ossified morass of assumptions that it may offer. It clearly involves a shift of horizon, terminology, and of course, possibilities. And why not?
 
Alas, when beset by such paradigm shifts, most inquiring minds formed within the shared horizons of their functional specialties, with common terminology based on commonly ascribed-to assumptions based on commonly accepted postulates which are themselves products of their time and setting... (okay, take a breath, Bobby :)... Most choose to scorn those who would dare challenge them to engage in what the late, great Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan would have termed, a "lateral differentiation of consciousness."  Their loss, Rosie, but ah, thou knowest well...
 
Languishing on their Liliput, they view the dark waters of separation between themselves and distant verdant isles with self-assured relief, knowing that the stable divisions of flora and fauna and corresponding taxonomies will continue to perpetuate the grand stasis of their cosmos.  The flotsam washing ashore can be burned, and occasional visitor bearing strange gifts and stories of new ways, sights and sounds can be turned away.
 
Forge on Madame! Damn the torpedoes!  And though some deign to vote you off the proverbial island, the proof shall be in the pudding, and some pudding it shall be!  :) All the best to you.
Bob
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 07:30:39 AM
Hello Bob,

What can I say but WOW.  Love the prose.  And many thanks for the support.  You're rare, a rare event on this battle scarred thread.  And I, like you, am looking forward to it's conclusion.  Them paradigms - they's shift'n.  Just an enduring shame that one first needs to endure a confrontation. I think we're looking at the bloodstained aftermath of a full on incursion.  But the comfort is that we're listening to that 'death rattle' of an archaic mindset.  LOUD - but INEVITABLE.

Just copying your post again.  I need to keep it in focus.

Kindest and best Bobby - and more to the point.  THANK YOU.

Rosie 

Hi Rosie,
Glad to see you're keeping a sense of humour about some of these remarks. Tho' not a daily follower of this thread, I do drop in from time to time, and have enjoyed your work since it first began appearing. I have to say I've been intrigued by your emergent paradigm for understanding our electrical universe, and the potential pathways through a rather ossified morass of assumptions that it may offer. It clearly involves a shift of horizon, terminology, and of course, possibilities. And why not?
 
Alas, when beset by such paradigm shifts, most inquiring minds formed within the shared horizons of their functional specialties, with common terminology based on commonly ascribed-to assumptions based on commonly accepted postulates which are themselves products of their time and setting... (okay, take a breath, Bobby :) ... Most choose to scorn those who would dare challenge them to engage in what the late, great Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan would have termed, a "lateral differentiation of consciousness."  Their loss, Rosie, but ah, thou knowest well...
 
Languishing on their Liliput, they view the dark waters of separation between themselves and distant verdant isles with self-assured relief, knowing that the stable divisions of flora and fauna and corresponding taxonomies will continue to perpetuate the grand stasis of their cosmos.  The flotsam washing ashore can be burned, and occasional visitor bearing strange gifts and stories of new ways, sights and sounds can be turned away.
 
Forge on Madame! Damn the torpedoes!  And though some deign to vote you off the proverbial island, the proof shall be in the pudding, and some pudding it shall be!  :) All the best to you.
Bob
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 10:27:17 AM
And guys.

This is for our esteemed Professor Emeritus, Steven E Jones, and submitted - notwithstanding the attendant risk of keeping things 'topical'.  It's a gentle reminder that we're investigating those rather eccentric 'justifications' that Poynty is using to deny us his PRIZE.   :o

There's a new 'mind set' evolving in science thinking - that is largely fertilized by the rotting carcase of 'old school thinking' and some liberal application of coprolites.  In a rather futile effort to DENY THE EVIDENCE - this school is now proposing to argue that a battery - in the process of discharging its potential difference - is delivering a NEGATIVE current flow.  8)   Which then results in a NEGATIVE wattage.  Now. Negative wattage, in terms of our standard model - results in a 'recharge' of the supply.  Therefore, rather confusingly  - and according to this reasoning, (or its 'abuse', depending on which 'school' one prefers) then we have that curious anomaly of admitting that every time a battery delivers it's current - we do NOT have a 'discharge' BUT a RECHARGE.  In effect, Poynty Point is earnestly recommending that we all IGNORE the obvious depletion of potential difference in all our known and standard battery applications, and somehow - through nothing more arduous than the application of A WILD AND UNSUBSTANTIATED hope, and against all evidence to the contrary - we can thereby convince ourselves  that our batteries will LAST FOREVER.  AND THAT WAY.  When we DO claim that our batteries are NOT discharging potential difference - THEN?  He's dealt with the argument.  He's saying that NOR SHOULD WE.  :o   OR.  CONVERSELY, he can then also argue that - IF and WHEN we measure a 'negative wattage' it is based on the erroneous assumption that we first EXPECT a repletion of potential difference.  And he's covered this point.  ::) There is none.  8)

And NOR, indeed - is this any kind of argument for anything at all.  It's a thinking that's emerging - like the 'walking dead' - in defiance of EXPECTATION, in defiance of the standard model and in defiance of ALL ODDS.  Let me remind you of what that standard model requires.  When a current is discharged from a battery supply then it is consistent with the polarity of the voltage from that supply.  Convention requires that the amount of energy that is delivered - is consistent with the amount of energy dissipated over the circuit material.  And this invariably results in a loss of potential difference.  And the power, or the rate at which that energy is transferred - is consistent with a positive wattage.  Our scientists depend on that CONVENTION.  Our learned and revered teach us that CONVENTION.  Our GREATS have explained the logic behind that CONVENTION.  And our poor measuring instruments just do what they're told and they COMPUTE according to that CONVENTION.  But Poynty Point, is DISREGARDING this CONVENTION.  He's crossing his fingers and arguing something that is wildly improbable and entirely unjustified.  And it seems that Bubba supports his thinking - or confuses this with Kirchhoff's unity requirements.  And - to boot - Gravock and others - who VOCIFEROUSLY DENY OUR CLAIMS -  are endorsing this - by DEFAULT.  Because NOT ONE OF THEM HAVE SPOKEN OUT IN PROTEST.

Hopefully our dear Professor will do this on their behalf.  Surely there is still SOMEONE out there who can defend our standard measurement protocols?  Can't wait to hear your arguments Professor.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

changed 'depletion' to 'repletion'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 08, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 08, 2012, 04:56:48 PM
Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99

So I see this result, and let me comment (without having read the entire thread!).
SPICE is a simulation package with Kirchoff's laws and conservation of energy built into the code (no doubt).

I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery. 

Now we turn to a real device -- just a simple battery and resistor circuit as shown by .99, and run the darn thing for 30 minutes, say.   The voltage on the battery right after the run will be down from the initial voltage, showing that it has lost some chemical-reserve energy; but from experience I know the battery will thereafter recover some of its voltage, in a rather short time.  So, I don't like this type of measurement as an absolute or particularly reliable way to measure the energy delivered by the battery, the input energy.

Rose, in an ou device, the output energy will be greater than the electrical input energy -- that's what we mean by ou.  (I think we can agree to that straightforward definition for starters.)  But a simulation package like SPICE cannot be expected to show an ou effect -- an ou effect has to be measured empirically in a reliable manner.

So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

For the output energy, I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry.  Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you.  With water-heating by the load, one can use:

Q = C(H2O) * mass * (Tfinal - Tinitial),
Where C(H2o) = 4.186 J/g-DegC for liquid water.

Best wishes for your success in your empirical measurements.
Steven J
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 04:58:20 PM
Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99

This is NOT a CONVENTION.  Your P-Spice program is designed to ACCURATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE BATTERY.  In the same way that IF some circuit component then DISCHARGED counter electromotive force - then it would show the VBAT WATTS as POSITIVE and the discharge of potential difference as NEGATIVE.  You are looking at the SUM.  NOW.  IF you're inclined to believe this SUM - which is ON THE MONEY - then WHY do you ENTIRELY DISCOUNT THIS WHEN IT SHOWS YOU YOUR OWN RESULTS SITTING AT A NEGATIVE WATTAGE SUM over our oscillating circuit?  And again.  Why are you even arguing this point?

And DON'T then try and argue that the battery is DELIVERING a negative wattage.  IT SIMPLY CANNOT.  It's SUM is RESULTING in a reduction of potential difference.  That's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER. It is INCAPABLE of delivering a negative wattage.  UNLESS CURRENT IS BEING RETURNED TO THAT BATTERY to RECHARGE IT.  Now can you see why your PIN POUT REFERENCES are so utterly meaningless without a DEFINITION?

And Poynty Point.  This is NOT debatable.  What's at issue is that INDEED your P-spice does not ERR.  What errs is your own ASSUMPTION of the significance of that SUM.  You've ASSUMED a DISCHARGE OF NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW from a battery supply.  Can't happen.  No such animal.

Regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
So I see this result, and let me comment (without having read the entire thread!).
SPICE is a simulation package with Kirchoff's laws and conservation of energy built into the code (no doubt).
Not actually Professor.  This is what's so surprising.  It appears to have been encoded with nothing more than Faraday's Laws of Induction.  Because when it simulates our circuit it actually DOES result in a NEGATIVE WATTAGE SUM.  Which, as we've explained in our paper - HAS NO RELEVANCE TO KNOWN PHYSICAL PARADIGMS - AND EVEN LESS WITH OUR CONSERVATION OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS.  I emphasise this because it's very significant.  It means that those simulation software programmers have entirely conceded that FARADAY trumps KIRCHHOFF - which was the subject of an inconclusive debate on Ponty's forum - led by the pretentious blathering of some one whose name escapes me. 

I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery.
EXACTLY.  It represents the SUM of depletion of potential difference.

Now we turn to a real device -- just a simple battery and resistor circuit as shown by .99, and run the darn thing for 30 minutes, say.   The voltage on the battery right after the run will be down from the initial voltage, showing that it has lost some chemical-reserve energy; but from experience I know the battery will thereafter recover some of its voltage, in a rather short time.  So, I don't like this type of measurement as an absolute or particularly reliable way to measure the energy delivered by the battery, the input energy.
Well again, not actually.  You will find that over time a battery will perform in line with it's watt hour rating.  And that much is ENTIRELY dependable.  The difference is only in that some batteries are designed to reliably discharge low current flows.  And others aren't that picky.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 05:34:36 PM
And before we entirely lose the significance of this.  Here's the thing.  In order for P-Spice to accurately compute the loss of potential difference at the supply it represents the SUM of the discharged current as a LOSS against the SUM of the energy dissipated at the load GAIN.  In the example that Poynty has used the SUM would be zero - which is in line with prediction and in line with Kirchhoff's unity requirements.  Else any sums that are done on this circuit would otherwise be misreprented.  In the same way if it were computing the energy RETURNED to the battery through counter electromotive force then it would COMPUTE the GAIN in potential difference at the supply and the loss of potential difference stored on circuit components.  It is showing NOT the polarised condition of a current flow but the EFFECT of that current on that all important SUM.

SO.  Back to our claim.  Your own simulation program - Poynty Point - shows you that when you do that SUM - the difference between the AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT IS DISCHARGED compared to the AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT IS RECHARGED - then there is a CLEAR AND EVIDENT GAIN to the battery supply.  I won't here argue the validity of that SUM.  JUST THAT IT'S EXTANT AND CORRECT. 

WOW.  That took 27 pages to argue.  Who'd have thought?  And this argument was presented as a JUSTIFICATION to deny us our PRIZE. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose

added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 06:31:44 PM
Now Professor, to the balance of this post.  By the way (BTW) thank you for addressing this question as expeditiously has you have managed.  I suspect that had you been involved in the early chapters of this thread - as we had asked - then this question would have been put to bed much, much earlier.  But the truth is too, that I didn't realise the extant of Poynty's argument until he gave that confusing account which I posted on your own thread.   In any event. Ever onwards - and hopefully more to the poynt.

Rose, in an ou device, the output energy will be greater than the electrical input energy -- that's what we mean by ou.  (I think we can agree to that straightforward definition for starters.)  But a simulation package like SPICE cannot be expected to show an ou effect -- an ou effect has to be measured empirically in a reliable manner. 
Sorry.  We've covered this.  Again, rather surprisingly P-Spice DOES compute a negative wattage.

So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).
Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery?  Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force?  And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.  So.  I wonder if I could impose on you to simply follow this convention that has the very real merit of complying to standard protocols - albeit somewhat more simplistically than I suspect you require.  Indulge me.

For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

THEN. For wattage or units of power delivered back to the battery supply - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  And here we'll get an average of the watts delivered per second and we can then use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered back to the battery supply source.

Just that much.  I'll get to the consideration of the energy dissipated at the load resistor thereafter.  Because the problem here is this.  We have more energy being returned to the supply source than was first delivered.  Which we've defined as INFINITE COP.  And the confusions are then even more extreme.  Because there is absolutely no energy that is being delivered by the battery as we've got open circuit conditions.  And as we all know, a battery CANNOT discharge energy unless it is connected to the circuit. 

You see.  There's nothing simple about this problem.  Perhaps if you could familiarise yourself with our paper you'll see the scope of the anomalies that we deal with.

Kindest regards, and thank you for applying yourself to this. Much needed if we're going to evaluate our results for that coveted over unity prize.
Rosie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 07:39:35 PM
And Professor,

Here's a list of those claims - just to keep this in focus and lest anyone assume that this claim is trivial.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on February 08, 2012, 08:01:14 PM
For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

"watts delivered per second"? ??? ?

Rosemary: you STILL don't get it.  There is no such thing as watts per second.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 08:11:24 PM
"watts delivered per second"? ??? ?

Rosemary: you STILL don't get it.  There is no such thing as watts per second.

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on February 08, 2012, 08:17:35 PM
A negative wattage mean that the power is REMOVED from the source...
Make a sim of a DC source and a resistor you will see for example -10 watts at the source side and  10 watts at the load side:
 (-10) + 10 = 0
In this circuit energy still conserved...


Sims have they own method to display result...


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 08, 2012, 08:20:40 PM
I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery. 

 ;)

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 08, 2012, 08:31:14 PM
A negative wattage mean that the power is REMOVED from the source...
Make a sim of a DC source and a resistor you will see for example -10 watts at the source side and  10 watts at the load side:
 (-10) + 10 = 0
In this circuit energy still conserved...


Sims have they own method to display result...

Schubert, did you miss this post?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg312064/#msg312064

.99 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on February 08, 2012, 08:55:56 PM
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

Rosemary

The scientific community does not yet have some of the SI Units down to their basics.

For example, an Ampere's units are really Meters/Second, but this is not yet understood and so they continue to just use Amperes because they do not realize that "Charge" (Coulomb) is actually a unit of "Distance" (Electron Orbit Diameter).  The now accepted "Charge per Second" (Ampere) is really "Distance per Second" which is the same as Velocity.  The same mis-information applies regarding a Weber and a Tesla.  The units for a Tesla are Kilograms/MeterSecond but they continue to use Kilogram/AmpSec2 or Weber/Meter2.  The community also does not yet realize that a Henry is a unit of Electrical-Mass (Kilogram).  The true electrical units can be easily and clearly viewed on EinsteinElectricity.com (http://einsteinelectricity.com/)

Gravock
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on February 08, 2012, 09:42:21 PM
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

I agree, it's getting very tedious.  But, if you cannot get the units right, then I don't see how you can get anything else right.  This is very basic.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on February 08, 2012, 11:11:20 PM
It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error.

but previously you posted this:
Quote from: poynt99
Disregard the small green doughnut near S1, it's an error message from PSPICE. See "burst_osc_schematic01.png" for the schematic.

so it's rather obvious that spice 'errors'... or was that green doughnut 'garbage in'?  ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 08, 2012, 11:32:52 PM
but previously you posted this:
so it's rather obvious that spice 'errors'... or was that green doughnut 'garbage in'?  ;)

You are correct, it was "garbage in". The S1 switch I placed there was for the purpose of updating the schematic, for the benefit of those wanting to build it. You see, there is no SPICE model for that switch, so PSpice was telling me that it could not "do anything" with that component.

It had absolutely no impact or affect on the results of the simulation results I posted, hence the message to ignore the green doughnut. It was a known garbage INPUT, and it is a "don't care".

But thanks for bringing this to our intention, there may have been others wondering something similar. Hope that explains it well enough.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on February 09, 2012, 02:50:57 AM
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Yes I can endorse negative current flow from a battery.  It all depends upon how "positive" is defined.  If you take a car battery and measure  12 volts, then reverse the leads and the meter then reads -12 volts, voila!  negative voltage, unless you think every meter in the world reads incorrectly.  You can do the same thing with a shunt resistor - you can read   or - amps, it depends on how you have the leads connected.
I think this has everything to do with your topic.  I have a really tough time following your explanations when you write "zig", when you should have written "zag", or whatever.
Bubba
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 09, 2012, 04:12:43 AM
I wrote to Rose:

Quote
For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).


She responded to me:


Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery? 
   Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force? 

I guess it wasn't clear that I was proposing a test in which you use a non-leaky, large C capacitor in place of the battery to provide the input energy.  I hope that is clear now. 

Rose continues:
Quote
And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training. ...
Rosie.


I see.  The equation

Quote
E = 1/2 C * (V**2)

is found in basic textbooks and provides the energy stored in a capacitor having a capacitance C.  Yes, V**2 represents V squared.

Thus, the energy delivered to your circuit BY THE CAPACITOR will be,

Efinal - Einitial = Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

Quite straightforward, isn't it?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Pandaman on February 09, 2012, 04:37:04 AM
The scientific community does not yet have some of the SI Units down to their basics.

For example, an Ampere's units are really Meters/Second, but this is not yet understood and so they continue to just use Amperes because they do not realize that "Charge" (Coulomb) is actually a unit of "Distance" (Electron Orbit Diameter).  The now accepted "Charge per Second" (Ampere) is really "Distance per Second" which is the same as Velocity.  The same mis-information applies regarding a Weber and a Tesla.  The units for a Tesla are Kilograms/MeterSecond but they continue to use Kilogram/AmpSec2 or Weber/Meter2.  The community also does not yet realize that a Henry is a unit of Electrical-Mass (Kilogram).  The true electrical units can be easily and clearly viewed on EinsteinElectricity.com (http://einsteinelectricity.com/)

Gravock

I agree, it's getting very tedious.  But, if you cannot get the units right, then I don't see how you can get anything else right.  This is very basic.

Yes but it is the perfect way to hide the fact that you are not going to get a free energy device without acceleration.

So where is the acceleration in this device?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 05:42:58 AM
Golly - I've woken up to all this?  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to suppose that I'm swimming AGAINST popular opinion.   :o Who would have thought?   ::) Guys, girls, I'm simply trying to alert you all to the existence of some rather desirable energy that's been 'hiding' in our inductive and conductive circuit components.  For some reason you all seem to find  this is hugely undesirable.  And it seems that you all consider the niceties of our science references, considerably more important than this rather unusual evidence.  Which, I might add, we've gone to some considerable trouble to PROVE.  And the ONLY nicety that I'VE attempted to redress is Poynty's INVALID point that a battery discharges a negative current flow.  However, as Bubba has correctly pointed out.  IF we first take the trouble to invert our probes - then we WILL INDEED get our results 'back in line'.  This is unarguable.  In other words she is recommending that we take logic by the nose - twist in any any clockwise or anticlockwise direction, as required, apply the boot to it's rear end - and then?  Reason is FLOORED.  Science is UPENDED.  Logic is DEFEATED.  And that's precisely the argument that Poynty makes - albeit a little more circuitously.  Actually a LOT more circuitously.  No question.

Put simply - the argument that they are both relying on is that we that we take our conventional positioning of our standard voltage probes and apply it to the negative terminal of a battery supply source.  And, that way - unquestionably - Poynty and Bubba would most certainly be able to win their arguments.  EVERYTHING contained in these tedious >30 pages of this thread is then MORE THAN JUSTIFIED.  She's right.  He's right.  Why follow convention?  BUT.  That leaves me with a real problem.  Because.  IF current flow from a battery supply source is ASSUMED to have a negative polarity - then I may as well pack up, move away from this morass of nonsense and irrelevances -  and get some sleep.  Much needed I might add.

And if that isn't enough - our dear Professor Steven E Jones, who we all know is the soul of courtesy and tact (except as it applies to Andrea Rossi) is now appealing to you all, participants and readers BOTH ... to ADJUDICATE?  I get the distinct impression that he's ANGRY?  God alone know about what - or why?  No longer do I get the simple courtesy of a direct reply.  He is clearly EXASPERATED.   He SPEAKS TO THE FLOOR.  He will not even address me.  For some reason my open admission of a SERIOUS lack of intelligence and comprehension - is NOT TO BE TOLERATED.  I'm not sure that its entirely fair.  My lack of a functional IQ (intelligence quotient) has already been assessed and found wanting.  So?  Surely?  I deserve something better than this DEMAND that I follow his own 'references'.  I simply do not have the mental agility to encompass so many departures from standard protocols.  I REQUIRE supreme indulgence - if I am to participate AT ALL - in this poor evidence that is struggling - as much as I myself am struggling - to get ACKNOWLEDGED.  Certainly I would have thought that those of us who are so seriously intellectually challenged - would deserve more courtesy.  One does not, as a rule 'kick a cripple'. 

In any event.  I'll see if I can somehow salvage our dear Professor's good will - and get this argument back on track - in the context of the ONLY terms that I can understand - which are, unfortunately and rather prosaically, merely CONVENTIONAL.  I'll do that in a follow up post.  Right now I'm exhausted.

Kindest regards notwithstanding, and ever onwards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 06:40:18 AM
And guys, Professor...girls?  All.

Here again is the schedule of rather preposterous CLAIMS that are proved by the experimental evidence of tests related to our circuit, detailed in our first part of that 2-part paper, witnessed now by some small fraction under 100 people - of varying electrical engineering skills but all of whom are COMPETENT.  And the results are broadly explained in the 2nd part of that 2-part paper.  These are not idle BOASTS.  Nor are the result of measurement errors.  And more to the point.  They're not FRIVOLOUS.  If valid - they unquestionably point to the existence of an energy supply source in inductive and conductive circuit material.  Which also means that we are using our electric current applications at something less than their full potential.  And this, like all such proof of ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLIES would, more than likely, be HIGHLY EXPLOITABLE.   

Here it is again.  Enjoy.  Or if this alarms you - then MOVE ON.  Because we're not able to cater to the faint hearted.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Kindest regards,
Rosie

I forgot to add.  THIS QUALIFIES US FOR THAT OVER UNITY PRIZE. And we're rather anxious to acquire this.  And more to the point - we NEED THAT PRIZE TO PROVE THAT OVER UNITY HAS INDEED SURFACED.  Finally found some air.  Ready to show itself.  Ready to be demonstrated.  The only question is how many excuses are going to be put in the way of that demonstration?  And when - in the history of science - has ANYONE been justified in DENYING EVIDENCE without first evaluating it?  CAN'T BE DONE.  IT'S A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on February 09, 2012, 07:05:22 AM
Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 07:40:00 AM
Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Dear Magsy,

You're on the money.  As ever.  NOW.  That argument is PRECISELY the argument that BP used when they evaluated our circuit.  We had to do these tests over days and weeks where we tested one against the other in a series of tests that were designed to give UNEQUIVOCAL RESULTS.  We included those EXACT PARAMETERS.  We checked voltage drops against a control.  Exactly as you've suggested.  We even did that exact comparison in those tests that we published in Quantum.  Over a 17 hour test duration we found that the control was flat when our circuit batteries had barely discharged a fraction of a volt.   A Professor Jandrell at WITS university - reviewed that paper.  IN HIS WISDOM he REFUSED TO LET US PUBLISH THOSE SCHEDULES.  For the first time in HISTORY an academic required that we DECREASE the data forwarded as evidence rather than ADD to it.  Which may or may not be construed as a deliberate attempt to diminish that evidence.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  Our academics are no fools.  IF INDEED - the argument hinged on the evidence against an ACTUAL APPLICATION - and if that evidence related to an EVALUATION OF THE CHEMISTRY OF THOSE BATTERIES - which is begged by that argument - then HIS OBJECTIONS ARE VALID.  And our academics know better than pose an objection if it is NOT first VALID - ON WHATEVER GROUNDS.

SO.  The irony is this.  Since that event - then the entire THRUST of all objections to our claim is this - LET IT RUN.  Just run it for as long as required and then come back - in a year or two and represent that CLAIM.  I am on RECORD.  It is entirely UNREASONABLE TO SIMPLY RUN OUR OWN CIRCUIT AND GAUGE BATTERY DRAW DOWNS.  THERE ARE NONE.  CONVERSELY.  It is entirely REASONABLE to simply run our own circuit against a control and COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE.  That's definitely DOABLE.  But it will involve me in an ENORMOUS amount of time, and even the expenditure of some money.  Because those tests need close monitoring.  And I am NOT about to let those switches 'do their thing' without monitoring.  I've seen that off set button default - at arbitrary moments in our experiments - that it can feed enough energy though the system to NUKE that circuit apparatus.  It's too risky to leave it unattended.

HOWEVER.  I will GLADLY do this test.  PROVIDED ONLY that this then carries the written endorsement of qualified academics that this will represent unequivocal proof of our argument.  Otherwise - where I may satisfy your own criteria - or those of you who depend on this argument - we'll still be left WITHOUT ACADEMIC ENDORSEMENT.  They can still come back and say - 'SO WHAT.  You've omitted a detailed account of the chemical interaction of the batteries that chemical interaction may, indeed, fully ACCOUNT FOR THAT ANOMALY'.

I'm not about to be bitten twice.  It's NOT an easy test to set up - believe it or not.  And it is NOT easy to monitor.  And it certainly is NOT an option unless there is a WIDE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS THEN UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF.  I'm not about to waste my time - yet again.  Get me a couple of academics who will go on record stating that this is ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR PROOF.  AND I'LL DO THAT TEST.  WITH PLEASURE.

But I absolutely agree with you Mags.  I KNOW that the test that you propose here is CONCLUSIVE.  It's getting our academics to acknowledge this that matters.  I would LOVE it if all our members here simply did these tests for themselves, looked at that oscillation - and puzzled out it's existence at all - in the light of a disconnected battery supply.  But I'm REALLY only interested in convincing our academics.  Because - in the final analysis - if they are NOT convinced by experimental evidence then this and any other over unity claims are dead at birth.  Still born.  Aborted. 

Kindest and best and thanks for reminding me about this argument.
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 01:29:56 PM
Dear Professor

I do not know what to do with that last post of yours.  I am at a loss for words.  Actually that's not quite true.  I'm BEWILDERED.  Why has my freely admitted inability to understand your equations - resulted in this APPEAL - in big bold capitals - to the entire world?  You seem to be asking all to rally and take note of your moral high ground.  And I freely confess it.  You're up there.  I'm down here.  Manacled by an entire dearth of the required acumen needed to follow your argument.  I'm reasonably satisfied that you have one.  I on the other hand have NONE.  I can ONLY follow the arguments that are advanced by the most of our power engineers as they relate to elementary power analysis.  My poor brain can manage no more and no better.

So.  Let me get back to my previous point.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered by a battery supply source.  Actually no.  Also not quite the truth.  Again.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered on a circuit during extended periods when the battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  And then we measure the energy that is returned to the battery - also when that battery is entirely disconnected.  Actually - this is beginning to sound somewhat convoluted - even to myself.  So. Let me try this again.

Dear Professor.  May I simply ask you to READ OUR PAPER.  IF you are then satisfied that our applied measurements are ADEQUATE - for the purposes of evaluating the energy that is delivered and returned, then we can talk about giving you a demonstration of this.  IF you are NOT satisfied - then kindly point out where those measurements are NOT adequate and we will, IF required REWRITE that paper.

Hows that?  It will carry the distinct advantage of not buckling down to tests that clearly have already been conducted.  They've been described in terms of energy delivered vs energy returned.  And in all samples there is more energy returned to that supply source than delivered.  Then - in the final leg of this increasingly absurd thread - we can then discuss the question of the heat measured to have been dissipated.  Because the amount of heat that has been dissipated has absolutely NO bearing on the energy delivered in the first instance.  There is none.

I hope that makes it clearer.  And I'd be glad to hear your opinion. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 09, 2012, 02:54:21 PM
TK - Why do you go on and on and on ... about this?
I have absolutely NO idea how to answer it in any abbreviated form that would be appropriate for these posts.  WHAT energy are you talking about?  From the top of my head I know there's chemical energy - magnetic energy  - nuclear energy.  There's energy of mass.  There's radiant energy.  And I don't think I've even skimmed the surface.  And Power - as I understand it - is the rate at which any one of those various types of energy is transferred.   Now. Let's see if YOU can answer a question.  WHY DO YOU ASK?  Is it because you ASSUME that I don't have an answer?  Is this some kind of 'test' where you can gauge my competence?  Are you satisfied that you can LURK in the background - and then impose these irrelevancies on this thread?

Rosemary

Irrelevancies? I ask you if you understand the difference between power and energy.... in a thread that is about measuring the Power and Energy of your magic circuit? A thread in which you post things like this:


Quote
Here it is again.  Enjoy.  Or if this alarms you - then MOVE ON.  Because we're not able to cater to the faint hearted.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Rosemary, I've put this here because I know how you like to go back and "edit" your old posts when they have been shown to be... wrong. You are making EASILY TESTABLE claims here... and they HAVE been tested..... and not verified. Just show a simple YT video of Claim 1, for example: A robust oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit.  None of your claims here are supportable by you or any of your "collaborators". I find it especially funny that Chessnyt has quoted Err-on Murakami, your sycophant from a couple years ago.... who, when he first started working on your circuit, didn't even understand how a mosfet circuit works at all, nor how to use an oscilloscope to make actual measurements. He also lies when he claims to be the "first" to demonstrate some things about your circuit... when we all know who REALLY did the definitive demonstrations of your circuit.

Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

This has been done, years ago, many times. Rosemary's circuit is less effective than heating water through an equivalent load with the same amount of DC power, and the batteries will drain faster, and I can prove this.... and so can anyone else who will ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.

Quote
[cite]Rosemary[/cite]We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered by a battery supply source.  Actually no.  Also not quite the truth.  Again.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered on a circuit during extended periods when the battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  And then we measure the energy that is returned to the battery - also when that battery is entirely disconnected.

Rosemary, if the past two years have proved anything, it is that you don't understand "standard measurement protocols".  For example.... please explain to me just how "probe skew" can affect measurements on pulsed power circuits.
 
And...when the battery is ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED...... you are able to measure "energy returned to the battery".... using "standard measurement protocols"...... but nobody else is able to do so....

Most people would have to have SOMETHING connected to the battery in order to measure it. But then we don't have your..... perspicacity.


Quote
Quote from: JouleSeeker on February 08, 2012, 04:56:48 PM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../msg312073/#msg312073)<blockquote>So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).
</blockquote>
Quote
[cite]Rosemary[/cite] Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery?  Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force?  And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.  So.  I wonder if I could impose on you to simply follow this convention that has the very real merit of complying to standard protocols - albeit somewhat more simplistically than I suspect you require.  Indulge me.

For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

THEN. For wattage or units of power delivered back to the battery supply - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  And here we'll get an average of the watts delivered per second and we can then use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered back to the battery supply source.

Now, Professor Joule Seeker .... do you begin to see what you are up against? Rosemary doesn't understand the difference between power and energy, she doesn't understand the principle of integration, she doesn't understand what a capacitor does or how it stores and transfers energy, she doesn't understand basic conventions of algebra....... and she doesn't understand how to do power and energy measurements in pulsed spiky circuits.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 09, 2012, 03:43:32 PM
For the benefit of some of the "newcomers" to the Ainslie work, I've posted these links.

The original Quantum Magazine circuit diagram, copied directly without any editing:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/99a0a1d879266d1bb50a2c40c9e6cc5f0c8e30e32706364361cf95514355a1d65g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/99a0a1d879266d1bb50a2c40c9e6cc5f0c8e30e32706364361cf95514355a1d65g.jpg)
I invite anyone to build this circuit and tell us what duty cycle it produces at the load.

A scope shot showing Rosemary's "Random Aperiodic Hartley Oscillations" (RAPHOs) claimed to be essential to the effect..... or does it?
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f1ddc6a0bf5d36f2ece82f50c6ff02c00bf697f2ab212d386b983f6d18bec4265g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f1ddc6a0bf5d36f2ece82f50c6ff02c00bf697f2ab212d386b983f6d18bec4265g.jpg)

A YT video, one of many, that illustrate a test run on an Ainslie-Murakami (Aaron, Qiman, Err-on) hybrid circuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oehuoaIhts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oehuoaIhts)

Another YT video, illustrating that what Rosemary claims about her circuit CAN be reproduced, measurement-wise, anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcC7bCI8EM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcC7bCI8EM)

A graph showing a time-temperature profile of load heating, comparing an Ainslie circuit performing according to her claims as far as all electrical MEASUREMENTS are concerned at 4.5% ON duty cycle from a pulse generator, with "RAPHOs" present, against a straight DC electrical feed at the same power level:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/c0a9d8c2e307dd7bddd9ae2c6a16abf694b48c90ed2abb5f467e9cc0d333ef615g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/c0a9d8c2e307dd7bddd9ae2c6a16abf694b48c90ed2abb5f467e9cc0d333ef615g.jpg)
The load used here is a custom-built inductive-resistive load that matched Rosemary's stated parameters in the circuit for her original COP>17 claim, immersed in oil in a test tube, heating up water in a surrounding test tube, all well-insulated -- and may I repeat again.... the circuit I built matched Rosemary's electrical measurements, so it must have been performing "correctly"... right?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 09, 2012, 04:42:18 PM
I asked Rosemary to explain the difference between Energy and Power. Here are a couple of relevant replies:

TK - Why do you go on and on and on ... about this?
I have absolutely NO idea how to answer it in any abbreviated form that would be appropriate for these posts.  WHAT energy are you talking about?  From the top of my head I know there's chemical energy - magnetic energy  - nuclear energy.  There's energy of mass.  There's radiant energy.  And I don't think I've even skimmed the surface.  And Power - as I understand it - is the rate at which any one of those various types of energy is transferred.   Now. Let's see if YOU can answer a question.  WHY DO YOU ASK?  Is it because you ASSUME that I don't have an answer?  Is this some kind of 'test' where you can gauge my competence?  Are you satisfied that you can LURK in the background - and then impose these irrelevancies on this thread?

Rosemary

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Don't you GET it, Bubba? Words mean what Rosemary wants them to mean, and that can be different from day to day. You are trying to argue with someone who thinks that the definitions of Energy and Power, and their common units, are IRRELEVANT to the measurement of her circuit and the evaluation of her claims.
Not only doesn't she care what people commonly mean when they talk about Watts or Joules, she considers the whole issue to have NOTHING to do with the topic.



Once again, Rosemary: The Watt is a unit of Power. Power is the RATE at which energy is transferred or dissipated. (At least you got that part right, even if you don't understand it mathematically.) The Joule is a unit of Energy. Energy is the ability to perform work. Energy is the conserved quantity, NOT POWER. A Joule (one unit of ENERGY), exerted (or dissipated if you like) during the time of one second, is one Watt of power. When you pay your electric bill you pay for "WattHours" or Watts x time.... in other words ENERGY units. The Watt is NOT equal to the Joule, as you say above, and the Joule is NOT "one watt per second" as you say above. For your information, when we say "per", that is equivalent to division. One Mile Per Hour is the same as 1 mile/hour. The correct formulation is this: One Watt = One Joule Per Second, or 1 J/sec. One Joule = One WattSecond (sometimes written as Watt-second, where the "-" actually indicates multiplication), that is, 1 W x 1 second. In other words, a RATE times a DURATION. If only you had completed algebra you might be able to grasp the difference. And if you had gone on to study the calculus, like just about everyone you are trying to argue with has done, you might be able to begin to grasp where your fundamental error lies.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 04:55:52 PM
Good gracious TinselKoala,

If I didn't know better I'd say you're rather ALARMED at all this.  So much hard work in getting those schedules in order.  :o That HISTORY that you like to misrepresent.  8)   Those questions about my competence.  :'(   I trust someone is making this worth your while.  It seems rather excessive if there's NOTHING TO THIS TECHNOLOGY.  And that's EASILY PROVED by a DEMONSTRATION. If it's wrong - it'll be DISMISSED.  You see this, I trust?  Your opinions, your allegations, your rather obsessive interests in everything about me - rather proves that you're really, really worried.  WHY?  We all know that any claim that's nonsense will be shown to be nonsense.  The worst of it is that I'll need to address EVERYTHING that your ALLEGE - lest anyone ever believe you again.  So.  Let's see what gives.

Irrelevancies? I ask you if you understand the difference between power and energy.... in a thread that is about measuring the Power and Energy of your magic circuit? A thread in which you post things like this:
My understanding of energy and the differences between power and energy is/are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.  The only thing that is relevant is whether the applied protocols as detailed in our paper - are RIGHT or WRONG.  And I'm rather concerned that you assume the circuit is MAGIC?  We only claim that it's operating according to known physical principles - especially as it relates to Inductive Laws.  Read our paper.

Then there's this...
Rosemary, I've put this here because I know how you like to go back and "edit" your old posts when they have been shown to be... wrong. You are making EASILY TESTABLE claims here... and they HAVE been tested..... and not verified.
Which in turn relates to this little schedule that I'm delighted to REFERENCE as often as is possible - without boring the pants of our readers.  HERE IT IS AGAIN  ;D

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Which part of this schedule are you concerned with.  And what EXACTLY is your concern?  That I'm lying?  Again.  A simple demonstration will resolve this.  It's all I require and all I've asked for from Professor and from Poynty Point.

I'll have to split this post.  It's getting seriously long.
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 05:17:10 PM
TK's concerns - continued/...

Just show a simple YT video of Claim 1, for example: A robust oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected.

None of your claims here are supportable by you or any of your "collaborators".
On the contrary.  They're well supported.  Just check out the paper.  And if you want more data - ask me.  I can give you enough to sink the Titanic - or CERTAINLY enough to sink Classical prediction.

I find it especially funny that Chessnyt has quoted Err-on Murakami, your sycophant from a couple years ago.... who, when he first started working on your circuit, didn't even understand how a mosfet circuit works at all, nor how to use an oscilloscope to make actual measurements. He also lies when he claims to be the "first" to demonstrate some things about your circuit... when we all know who REALLY did the definitive demonstrations of your circuit.
We all know how competitive you are TK.  Unfortunately you're experimental aptitudes are seriously wanting.  Aaron on the other hand is - A NATURAL.

This has been done, years ago, many times. Rosemary's circuit is less effective than heating water through an equivalent load with the same amount of DC power, and the batteries will drain faster, and I can prove this.... and so can anyone else who will ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.
WE KNOW THIS.  I think, indeed, that you DID disprove it.  But you didn't manage EVER to get that Parasitic Hartley Oscillation.  So all you ACTUALLY proved is your own experimental ineptitude. I certainly don't count that against you.  It would have been EXTRAORDINARY - HAD you proved it - given your reluctance to concede to the principle of over unity.

Rosemary, if the past two years have proved anything, it is that you don't understand "standard measurement protocols".  For example.... please explain to me just how "probe skew" can affect measurements on pulsed power circuits.
My dear TK.  I've said this before and I'll say it as often as required.  My understanding or otherwise, my aptitudes or lack thereof, my intelligence - or stupidity - my talents, my lack of talents - THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.  The ONLY thing that matters is what we, as a group of collaborators - have written and presented as proof of the tests that we have conducted.  THAT'S IT. 

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 05:29:41 PM
And yet more of TK's concerns. They're endless - continued/...

Most people would have to have SOMETHING connected to the battery in order to measure it. But then we don't have your..... perspicacity.
Golly.  Perspicacity - no less.  LOL.  And this about someone with a heavily compromised intellect?   8) Or do I detect some heavy handed sarcasm?  God forbid. :o
 
And...when the battery is ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED...... you are able to measure "energy returned to the battery".... using "standard measurement protocols"...... but nobody else is able to do so....
Not actually TK.  I don't know anyone who's duplicated these experiments on this forum - or this thread.  If there are any - then do let me know.  I only know that Poynty Point managed this oscillation on his simulation.  And then he denied those results based on the fact that the NEW AND CORRECT protocol is to apply the probe of the oscilloscope to the negative terminal of the battery.  Which we PROPOSE may rather CONFRONT some rather well established conventions.

Now, Professor Joule Seeker .... do you begin to see what you are up against? Rosemary doesn't understand the difference between power and energy, she doesn't understand the principle of integration, she doesn't understand what a capacitor does or how it stores and transfers energy, she doesn't understand basic conventions of algebra....... and she doesn't understand how to do power and energy measurements in pulsed spiky circuits.
LOL.  I really don't care to deny this.  It makes for such interesting reading.

Gosh.  That's it?  No more on this post. 
Ok TK.  THERE'S MY REPLY. 

As ever, Rosy
Pose.
 :-*
I've taken out a whole lot of duplications.  Apologies guys.  I think I hit the paste button once or twice too often.
 R

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 09, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
Just as an aside and this is for our dear Ramset who OSTENSIBLY professes to support over unity,

In the light of these arguments do you SERIOUSLY propose that TK would be the right choice to arbitrate on that Serbian professor and his claim?  I think the evidence is rather OVERWHELMING that his mission is to DENY over unity - even if, as a last resort - he needs to attack the CLAIMANT rather than the CLAIM.  I wonder that you haven't asked him to adjudicate on Andrea Rossi's technology - or even LASERSABER's?  Is it because neither of them bother with these forums?  So all you're left with is me and our rather modest little efforts in this regard?

And by the way (BTW) - I still haven't managed to find out more about that SA motor number.  But I'll keep at it.  I think the best solution would be to write to Sterling Allen.  I doubt that those experimenters want anonymity else they'd not involve Sterling in the first place.  I'll let you all know if I ever do find out more. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 10, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.   :o Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   8)

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.

Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags


I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 10, 2012, 04:04:07 AM
Rosemary Ainslie, you did NOT produce free energy or achieve anything other than making yourself look foolish.  This is good news, since you no longer need to piss away your food stamp money on worthless contraptions.

I am recommending "Physics For Dummies" for you to read.
www.amazon.com/Physics-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470903244 (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470903244)

You do not understand even the most basic concepts of physics.  You don't know how to take proper measurements either.  A free energy machine would NEVER need batteries to run.  Just the fact that your contraption uses batteries means that it does not work.

Hello again replaced.  Delighted to see your input.  IF you are right - then CERTAINLY our PROPOSED EXPERIMENT WILL FAIL.  Which means that you will be VINDICATED.  And I'm sure you'd enjoy that.  And I'm reasonably sure that you're enough of a scientist to KNOW how important is experimental evidence.  So.  Let's see what some actual tests demonstrate.  Then neither you nor I need to gainsay those results.  Or are you rather frightened that those results will prove you wrong?  Don't be alarmed.  If popular opinion is anything to go by - then you're in really good company.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

And might I add (AMIA) - AGAIN - (AMIAA) - that I do not, nor ever have, subscribed to Free Energy.  I don't even know what could be meant by free energy.  No such thing. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 10, 2012, 04:12:15 AM
Your experiment will fail, so running it is absolutely pointless.  I know this ahead of time due to the laws of thermodynamics. 

First tell me which thermodynamic equation is wrong, because if the equations are correct then your experiment will never work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_thermodynamic_equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_thermodynamic_equations)

I'm not sure that I'm about to oblige you in a long discussion about anything at all.  If you are interested then read our paper.  If you are simply sharing your opinion - feel free.  If you think that I'm about to engage in any kind of discussion with you - then disabuse yourself. I'm already in a discussion.  And that's with Poynty and with Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones.  They need to evaluate some experimental evidence.  Failing which they need to cough up with some rather desirable properties related to their prize.  And that prize is NOT for FREE ENERGY.   It's for proof of over unity.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 01:21:41 AM
Ok Guys,

I'm going to assume that I've been given permission to post extracts from our second paper - directly to this blog.  Not sure, as I've not heard from Stefan.  But I'll risk it. If it's frowned upon - just know that it's intended to advance the standard model.  Which should keep our purists happy.  And it's only intended as an offer of our own modest concepts - which may, or may not be appreciated and may or may not warrant further discussion.  In the unlikely event that it gets there - then hopefully we can continue this on another thread.

Before I get there - just a quick reference to MileHigh who, rather endearingly, assumes that if it's in black and white - and if it comes from his own key board - then it's most certainly 'CORRECT'.  His opinions about his own 'knowledge' is refreshingly untrammeled by any need to impose logic on any proposal that he makes.  Whereas, in point of fact, and as Poynty describes it  - 'he errors'.  All over the place. 

My dear MileHigh.  That 'signal terminal' as you've taught me to refer to it - from the function generator - includes a ground terminal.  The TWO TERMINALS ARE NOT CONNECTED other than through 3 or 4 optional signal signal settings - including, among others, a square wave output signal.  THAT's the signal we apply.  Now.  Follow my lead.  The connection is from that ground terminal - through approximately 1000 Ohms of resistance and wiring - then BACK through about 50 Ohms of resistance in the signal terminal and then to the GATE OF Q1.

IF you are proposing that the current is flowing from the battery supply to that that negative terminal and then back through to the positive terminal - effectively breaching upwards of 1050 Ohms of resistance - then the resulting waveform from that signal generator would show a voltage upwards of 70 volts.  At the risk of merely using the evidence of the waveform itself I'll take the trouble to post YET ANOTHER DETAIL of the ACTUAL WAVEFORM taken at the GATE of Q1.

ALTERNATIVELY - IF you are proposing that the current from the battery flows onto the negative terminal and then skips that circuitry in the signal generator and simply 'flies through the air' onto the signal terminal - then it would need to breach all that plastic insulation coating those terminals.  And I suspect, that we would then need to see some evidence of arcing. 

IF you are assuming that we have NOT taken careful measurement of the heat that has been dissipated at the element resistor - then think again.  Our paper refers. IF the significance of this ELUDES YOU then NOTA BENE.  If the temperature of the load resistor exceeds 70 watts or thereby - then we have recorded the temperature as it relates to boiling point of the water in which that element resistor is immersed.

Why is it that I'm the ONLY one who is managing any kind of valid argument?  The only comfort, at least, is that both Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones have run out of both objections and excuses. Which means that they both need to OFFICIALLY WITHDRAW THAT PRIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S JUST A RUSE AND WILL ONLY EVER BE CONSIDERED AS QUALIFYING FOR THAT PRIZE AS APPLIED TO THOSE DEMONSTRATIONS THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN DISPROVE - IN ADVANCE.  Anyway.  I'll try and download that detail and hope to hell that you understand the significance of this.  Then I'll try and close up with a final argument.  And then I'll post over that paper.  And then HOPEFULLY - I'll be able to get on with my life.

Kindest regards MileHigh.  Your writing style is superb.  Your arguments are BASELESS.
Rosie

Edited
changed you're to your.  I'm getting seriously OLD.
added '...TO THOSE DEMONSTRATIONS THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN DISPROVE - IN ADVANCE.'
and then again added 'AS QUALIFYING FOR THAT PRIZE AS' ostensibly to make the point clearer - and actually to emphasise this.

 :D 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 11, 2012, 01:43:24 AM
So now temperature is measured in Watts.

And we see another uninterpretable oscilloscope trace that shows neither a 3.5 percent duty cycle nor an integration of an instantaneous power curve.

Rosemary, you really are incompetent. In just the last two pages, you have erred : in the definition of energy and power; the units of each; the math relating Watts, Joules, and time; how to get power from current and voltage traces; how to interpret a simple algebraic equation; what "C" means in reference to a capacitor; and now you have temperature measured in Watts.

And you have accused me of being an incompetent experimentalist. Please... I have posted YT videos of many of my experimental sessions looking at your various claims. Please... point out EXACTLY where I have exhibited incompetence in my experimentation. Give a link to the particular experiment and the time. If you cannot support your accusation of incompetence with factual references, you really should withdraw your characterization.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 02:00:06 AM
So now temperature is measured in Watts.

And we see another uninterpretable oscilloscope trace that shows neither a 3.5 percent duty cycle nor an integration of an instantaneous power curve.

Rosemary, you really are incompetent. In just the last two pages, you have erred : in the definition of energy and power; the units of each; the math relating Watts, Joules, and time; how to get power from current and voltage traces; how to interpret a simple algebraic equation; what "C" means in reference to a capacitor; and now you have temperature measured in Watts.

And you have accused me of being an incompetent experimentalist. Please... I have posted YT videos of many of my experimental sessions looking at your various claims. Please... point out EXACTLY where I have exhibited incompetence in my experimentation. Give a link to the particular experiment and the time. If you cannot support your accusation of incompetence with factual references, you really should withdraw your characterization.

LOL.  What lengths you go to TK.  Your efforts are TIRELESS.  But I'll pass - if you don't mind. I'm rather reluctant to look at your videos. They're boring at best.  And we've already dealt with the problem of your poor aptitudes.  Quite apart from which - I prefer to watch videos by those who I respect and admire.  But I think you've already advertised your work in an earlier post.  If you feel the need to repost this?  Then PLEASE.  Feel free.  Do so again.  I'm sure Harti will give you the space.  And I certainly don't begrudge it.  It's not as if it makes a blind bit of difference.

Regards,
Rosie Posie

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 11, 2012, 02:15:07 AM
LOL.  What lengths you go to TK.  Your efforts are TIRELESS.
On the contrary... I am getting seriously tired of your prevarication, mendacity, and willful incompetence -- not to mention your profound disrespect for others, who have spent a lot more time than you have on their academic and other credentials. A high-school dropout with no math, no physics, no chemistry, no electrical engineering.... no patent.... no publications..... nothing but delusions.... trying to discuss electronics issues with the experts.... it would be laughable if it wasn't so boring.
Quote
But I'll pass - if you don't mind. I'm rather reluctant to look at your videos. They're boring at best.
I invite anybody reading here to take a look at my "boring" videos. Which is the most boring.... I think it's got to be one of the two where I educate Err-on about the state of the voltage at the Drain of your mosfet when it is turned ON by gate drive. They are pitched at about 6th grade level so Err-on and you might have a chance of understanding.
Quote
And we've already dealt with the problem of your poor aptitudes. 
Again.... I double dare you.... point out just where my "aptitudes" are "poor". I'm a good teacher. Again, I invite anyone reading here to look at my demonstrations and critique them.
Quote
Quite apart from which - I prefer to watch videos by those who I respect and admire.
You mean those who agree with you. Who is left in that group? Certainly not Aaron or Harvey or others who once believed in your mendacity and errors.
Quote
But I think you've already advertised your work in an earlier post.  If you feel the need to repost this?  Then PLEASE.  Feel free.  Do so again.  I'm sure Harti will give you the space.  And I certainly don't begrudge it.  It's not as if it makes a blind bit of difference.

Regards,
Rosie Posie

Stefan sees my videos and occasionally comments there. I'm surprised that you are abusing his good graces in the way that you do.  Once again... I offer my TinselKoil for testing. Use exactly the same tests and protocols and analysis that you use for your circuit. My TKoil is basically your circuit with a different load and some other "minor" improvements, so your test procedures IF THEY ARE VALID for your device will also be valid for mine. You've seen what the TKoil will do.... it outperforms your silly circuit by a factor of at least 10,000. Why are you afraid to apply your measurements and analysis to it? I know why... it is because NOBODY is claiming that the TKoil is OU or has a COP over 1. Yet when measured in your manner, the COP comes out extremely high... even infinite if you like... and it does it while making a 4-inch long power arc that's so energetic that it actually burns the air gases into a plasma.
Meanwhile you can't even show your device boiling water... like I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 02:37:32 AM
My dear Tinsel Koala,

You have most certainly NEVER managed our tests related to our paper.  From your insistence on these rather antiquated references, I'm not sure that you're even on the same page.  But even if you are - who cares?  I don't.  And nor do I care WHAT you think.  Nor is there any legislation required to FORCE me to care.

I get the general impression that you actually don't think that much of me OR my abilities.  Fortunately your opinion doesn't really matter.  Not to me - anyway.  If the readers here are concerned - then?  Just don't bother to read here - is what I'd propose.  It's not as if it's COMPULSORY.  And I keep advising you.  If you feel the need to advertise yourself?  Feel free.  I'm sure Stefan will give you all the space you need.  Meanwhile - if you don't mind - I'll rabbit on about our ACTUAL experiment and our ACTUAL paper.  It is, after all, the topic under discussion. 

Take care TK, and try and reign in all that EGO.  It shows a want of moderation and balance.  Which is required if you want to promote the general impression that you're not neurotically competitive - or wildly obsessed.  Not sure which.  Either way - your work as you keep referencing it - has absolutely NOTHING to do with our paper, our claim, or even the subject of this thread.  It's just OFF TOPIC.  Unfortunately.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 02:50:14 AM
   
Guys here's that second part of that 2-part paper.  I'll split it into as many posts as are required.  Hopefully it'll engage some of you.

PROPOSED VARIATION TO FARADAY'S LINES OF FORCE TO INCLUDE A MAGNETIC DIPOLE IN IT'S STRUCTURE.

A PAPER prepared by Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
 Abstract[/i]-A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper. This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow. An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow. This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow. These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results. The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.

INTRODUCTION.

  A circuit (Fig 1) is designed to reliably induce an oscillation that is enabled for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of the MOSFET Q1. The level of that oscillation can be varied through adjustments to the duty cycle and to the applied signal at the gate of the transistors. The waveforms (Figs 2 & 3) are typical examples of these oscillations that are induced from voltage measured across a current sensing resistor, (RSHUNT) and the battery supply. 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 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. Nor indeed have the transistors been compromised to allow for this half of each oscillation. This raises the questions as to what there is in the property of current flow relating to this oscillation that is able to exceed the circuit components’ physical restrictions to this flow and what accounts for the extreme range of the battery voltage resulting from this oscillation.
 


These questions can be answered within a classical context as it relates to the both the Laws of Charge and Inductive Laws, here modelled with a modification to the standard reference. The modifications are to concepts related to Faraday’s lines of force (Fig 3) that are extended to incorporate a dual charge in a proposed material property of current. Effectively the proposal is made that while multiple lines of force comprise a magnetic field, each line is structured from magnetic dipoles that are naturally organised at 180 degrees to each other. It is then argued that voltage is an imbalanced, open condition of a magnetic field and that current flow is the transfer of those fields through a circuit and back to its terminal source. By returning to the source it is then able to reduce that charge imbalance by closing those open lines or strings. In this way, the justification or direction of current flow is then led by either a positive or a negative charge depending on the applied voltage and the material source of that voltage. And this charge presentation can then be either repelled by, or attracted to, the ionised condition of various transistor materials or to the charge presented at the transistor’s gates. This would then allow for the flow of current or not, depending on the negative or positive charge presented to the circuit and circuit components that are in the path of that flow of current, and on the polarisation of the voltage that has induced that current flow.
...continued

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 02:54:31 AM
The question that remains outside the scope of this study, relates to the location of this source of this energy if it is not, in fact, coming from the battery supply source. This question goes to the heart of a thesis that was developed around a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. The relevant aspect of that model is that it requires this oscillation as a result of the exchange of energy that is supplied by the circuit material. The proposal is that the voltage and the resulting reversing flow of the induced current from the oscillation itself, is led by an opposite charge to the battery primary supply and that the material property of charge is from the circuit material itself. These results are measured in tests that relate to the first part of this two-part paper. What is here intended is to model the current comprising magnetic dipoles and to show that the circuit paths would then allow that current reversal without a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source

11 THE CIRCUIT APPARATUS

The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (Fig. 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and the Q-array of 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1 & Q2 x 4 in parallel). A signal generator drives the transistors. A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source. Circuit components are listed in Table I.

A.  The Circuit Operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). A reverse current path is enabled by the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q1 & Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. The oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.
...continued
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 03:26:25 AM
It seems I need to interrupt this to reference MileHigh's latest concerns.

My dear MileHigh.  OF COURSE the load current must flow through both the power supply and the function generator.  But this little interaction between the two currents is ONLY managed when the circuit is CLOSED that the battery is able to discharge any current at all.  Then INDEED the voltage at the gate of the signal generator increases.  I'll post YET ANOTHER example where the increase in the voltage is clear.  AS EVER. Follow the BLUE TRACE and relate that to the ORANGE trace.  BUT during the period that the circuit is OPEN when the battery cannot supply any current - THEN?  You will notice that the signal at the gate of Q1 defaults to below zero.  THEN it is EVIDENTIAL that the load current is NOT flowing through the function generator from that battery power supply.  ELSE it would be GREATER THAN ZERO.  IT IS NOT.

WHY am I having to show you this?  I'm meant to be the ignoramus here.  Come on MileHigh. You need to do MUCH better than this. And this posted here as your rather optimistic REBUTTAL - which is not a rebuttal at all. Here's that reference for those who don't read OUR.com

Another limitation of using this method is that the current available to your load is limited to the output current of the function generator you choose, since the load current must flow through both the power supply and the function generator. Also, most function generators have a 50-ohm output impedance, meaning any load current will flow through this resistance. This resistance will form a voltage divider with your load impedance, so be sure to adjust the DC power supply output voltage accordingly.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 11, 2012, 05:40:41 AM
It's too bad that "oscilloscope abuse" isn't a crime. You'd be safely in jail by now.

Did you even bother to read the .pdf I linked on power supply measurements using oscilloscopes? Somehow I don't think so. You wouldn't have understood it anyway....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 07:40:13 AM
And MORE interruptions.  MileHigh, Mags, giantkiller, PhysicsProf, Poynty  - to all my tireless detractors.

Let me presume to give you ALL an elementary lesson in the workings of your standard  N CHANNEL MOSFET TRANSISTOR.  Which is as boring as hell - but very obviously REQUIRED.  And for now you'll all have to overlook the irony of who is presuming to teach who - and just address the OBVIOUS NEED to explain this - IN SIMPLE TERMS.  Luckily for us all.  I'm SIMPLE MINDED. Therefore I'm OVER QUALIFIED for the task in hand.

Under standard circuit conditions - when a battery is applied to a circuit it is able to deliver potential difference.  Convention determines that this is delivered in the form of current flow and that the current flows from the positive terminal of the battery supply source to it's negative terminal.  That current flow results in a loss of potential difference from that supply.  Now.  Convention has ruled that the flow of current is consistent with the applied voltage.  Given a positive voltage the current is positive - ABOVE ZERO.  Given a negative voltage the current is negative - BELOW ZERO.  Convention also determines the that POSITIVE FLOW of current is shown to be CLOCKWISE.  And correspondingly the NEGATIVE FLOW of current is shown to be ANTI CLOCKWISE.  ALL, obviously, relative to the plus and minus terminals of that battery.

PROVIDED ONLY that the positive terminal is CONTINUOUSLY linked to the negative terminal of that battery supply source - PROVIDED that there are no GAPS in that circuit - and PROVIDED that there is enough POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE to breach any resistance in that circuit - THEN - as day follow night I can recommend that you can stake everything that you own - on a certainty.  Which is that we can confidently predict a systematic depletion of potential difference while the battery discharges a current flow that moves clockwise through the circuit FROM the positive terminal to the negative terminal.  I am not even THINKING of what makes up that current.  Just dealing with what's KNOWN.

NOW.  If we apply a transistor in series with that circuit then what that transistor IMMEDIATELY manages is to BREAK that CONTINUOUS LINE of circuitry.  It STOPS the flow of current IN IT'S TRACKS.  For as long as that transistor simply sites there - it has disconnected the battery terminals.  NO LONGER can that current be discharged to reduce the potential difference at the supply.  Again.  For as long as that transistor simply sits there - it has EFFECTIVELY BROKEN the circuit.  It has disconnected the positive terminal of the battery from the negative terminal of the battery.  And now.  You I can recommend that you can stake everything you own of the fact that there will be absolutely NO CURRENT FLOW

The MOSFET typically has three legs.  It has a DRAIN LEG which is linked to the POSITIVE TERMINAL of the battery.  And it has a SOURCE LEG which is linked directly to the NEGATIVE TERMINAL of the battery.

I didn't mean to but I see I HIT the post button.  Just as well.  This is getting rather long.  I'll continue this argument in the next post.
R

ADDED N CHANNEL. Sorry.   :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on February 11, 2012, 08:47:32 AM

A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper. This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow. An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow. This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow. These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results. The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.

INTRODUCTION.

  A circuit (Fig 1) is designed to reliably induce an oscillation that is enabled for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of the MOSFET Q1. The level of that oscillation can be varied through adjustments to the duty cycle and to the applied signal at the gate of the transistors. The waveforms (Figs 2 & 3) are typical examples of these oscillations that are induced from voltage measured across a current sensing resistor, (RSHUNT) and the battery supply. 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 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. Nor indeed have the transistors been compromised to allow for this half of each oscillation. This raises the questions as to what there is in the property of current flow relating to this oscillation that is able to exceed the circuit components’ physical restrictions to this flow and what accounts for the extreme range of the battery voltage resulting from this oscillation.

These questions can be answered within a classical context as it relates to the both the Laws of Charge and Inductive Laws, here modelled with a modification to the standard reference. The modifications are to concepts related to Faraday’s lines of force (Fig 3) that are extended to incorporate a dual charge in a proposed material property of current. Effectively the proposal is made that while multiple lines of force comprise a magnetic field, each line is structured from magnetic dipoles that are naturally organised at 180 degrees to each other. It is then argued that voltage is an imbalanced, open condition of a magnetic field and that current flow is the transfer of those fields through a circuit and back to its terminal source. By returning to the source it is then able to reduce that charge imbalance by closing those open lines or strings. In this way, the justification or direction of current flow is then led by either a positive or a negative charge depending on the applied voltage and the material source of that voltage. And this charge presentation can then be either repelled by, or attracted to, the ionised condition of various transistor materials or to the charge presented at the transistor’s gates. This would then allow for the flow of current or not, depending on the negative or positive charge presented to the circuit and circuit components that are in the path of that flow of current, and on the polarisation of the voltage that has induced that current flow.
...continued


I'm in agreement with the portions I highlighted in bold on the above quote made by Rose.

An electron is an integration of electromagnetic waves.  We can define the electron as deformed magnetic space, propagated in wave form.  Now an electron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiraling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation.

The so-called orbits K-L-M'0 are nothing but stationary electrical waves in the field of the atom, each having its particular wave structure and frequency. It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space.

Below is a quote I made earlier in this thread.  This issue must be settled before we know how to correctly measure the device, IMO.

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.

Gravock

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 08:51:24 AM
AS I WAS SAYING/...

The MOSFET typically has three legs.  It has a DRAIN LEG which is linked to the POSITIVE TERMINAL of the battery.  And it has a SOURCE LEG which is linked directly to the NEGATIVE TERMINAL of the battery.  Nothing too extraordinary.  BUT between these two legs it also has a GATE leg. And this gate is ALWAYS LEFT OPEN.  This is the point at which the circuit is BROKEN that the positive battery terminal has no CLUE how to find it's negative.  HOWEVER.  There is another property to that gate.  PROVIDED IT IS FED WITH A POSITIVE SIGNAL - which is in 'SYNCH', so to speak, with the that discharge of current flow from the battery - then VOILA it provides a BRIDGE to span that gap - that current can, indeed, flow.  Then the battery current can cross that bridge and move back to its source.   So the discharge of that energy from the battery supply source moves from the positive terminal - through the DRAIN LEG - onto the BRIDGE provided by that positive signal at the GATE LEG - and then through to the SOURCE LEG and back to the negative terminal of the battery.

Effectively, the function generator has applied a small potential difference to that Q1 gate.  Which - in turn, generates a small current flow.  And - in our function generator - this little bit of energy comes from a grid supply.  The generator pulls off a small amount of energy from the plug - induces a positive secondary voltage from this energy.  Which results in a small positive current flow.   And then it applies this at its signal terminal - to the gate leg of the MOSFET.  And since we're talking about our circuit - then all of this is managed at Q1.  Then this small current resulting from this applied positive voltage moves FROM the signal TERMINAL - through the gate leg of Q1 - through the source leg of Q1 ... and THEN BACK to the GROUND TERMINAL OF THE SIGNAL PROBE.

NOTA BENE. It does NOT send this energy back to the negative terminal of the battery but back to it's own ground.  And it ENDS UP at the PLUG OF THAT UTILITY SUPPLY SOURCE.  And HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?  It's simple.  If it the function generator could NOT return this current to its OWN source - then it would not be able to generate any current from an applied voltage. Any more than the battery can deliver current flow from ITS POSITIVE terminal if it cannot also return this current to ITS NEGATIVE terminal.  And this little bit of voltage and this little bit of current applied by the function generator - is the BRIDGE.  Which is constructed as a VIABLE  and SHARED current path that the battery USES to connect its own negative and positive terminals.  Then the battery can discharge its energy.  So.  That bridge has effectively CLOSED the circuit to enable a battery supply.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  It only takes a relatively SMALL signal in the form of an applied positive voltage - to manage that link.  To do this - we apply a signal from a function generator.  We set the signal probe of that function generator to the GATE of Q1 and apply a positive voltage in the form of a square wave.   And this positive voltage - as explained - generates a current that flows from the signal terminal to the gate of Q1 to the source leg of Q1 to the signal's ground - and back into the signal generator and back to the utility supplier.  And while it does this then, somehow, the current flow from the battery can 'piggy back' a ride on this current - and move from it's positive terminal to the Drain leg of Q1 - through to the gate - over the bridge provided by that signal terminal - through to the source - and back to ITS own battery negative terminal.  For a brief moment in time - those current flows are very much together - married - until the one separates into the signal's ground terminal and the other separtes onto the source rail of the battery to return to its negative terminal.

NOW.  All things being EQUAL.  When we CHANGE THAT SIGNAL at the gate to a NEGATIVE SIGNAL...

I'm posting this because I think it's long enough. 

Added some ... or that last sentence makes no sense.
Corrected to Q1 (wrote to Q2 - erroneously)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 08:58:08 AM
Gravock - I'm amazed that you're in agreement with any part of what's written.  I'm knee deep in my justification of the disconnected state of the Q2 MOSFETS.  I'll need to finish that and will get back here.  I think I'll need to post over more of the paper before we get to nitty gritties.  BUT I'M DELIGHTED THAT YOU'RE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THIS.  I had no idea that anyone one at all - was seriously interested.  But I've got to finish off that ruddy argument for MileHigh et al - or I'll forever be plagued with that absurd argument that that the battery can deliver any energy at all during the off period of the duty cycle. 

Golly.  Am delighted with this.  Hopefully you'll manage the equations for us.  Someone must.  They're BADLY NEEDED.

Regards,
Rosie 

And right now I need to break off and do some shopping.  I've just seen the time.  Be back as soon s I've bought the food to feed the dogs and cooked  some lunch.  HLTT (However long that takes) and BRBST (be right back soonest thereafter) This is seriously fun for me.
Edited the edit.  Grammar.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: AbbaRue on February 11, 2012, 09:07:42 AM
@All:

Interesting enough this article about negative resistance circuits (Negative Resistance = Power Source)
shows circuits very simular to the Rosemary circuit!
Main difference is he used the drain instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter)
A very good article to download and study on this subject:

http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/142/pdf/lect23.pdf (http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/142/pdf/lect23.pdf)

From page 12 on there are a number of circuits with similar connections to Rosemary's circuit. 
Some of these could be tested to further this study. 
Based on this article and it's implications I think this subject deserves further investigation and less mockery!
After all this is a Berkeley University of California, article.
Unless someone on this forum thinks they are above this Berkeley Professor.
Rosemary may have something here!

Also wanted to mention Naudin's studies into Negative Resistance Using only 2 leads of a 2N2222A transistor.

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cnr/negosc.htm (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cnr/negosc.htm)

The MOSFET "Q2" who's source is not directly connected to the battery reminds me of it. 
Further study suggests that Q2 is functioning as a MOSFET Varactor. (page 25 of Berkeley article)

I have tried replicating this circuit using following MOSFET's
BUZ11 50v 33A
IRF630 200V 9.3A
IRF820 500V 2.5A (best results)

For the heating element I used a 300W 130V halogen bulb measured at 5 ohms and 250 micro Heneries.

I used 555 timer circuit for the Oscillator input:
With variable 10k resistors across 6-7 7-8 leads, to vary the wave form output.

For the main voltage input I used two 12 V. lead acid rechargeable batteries for about 25V.

I got high voltage spikes returning to the battery when I connected an inductor in series with the halogen.
I connected a 1000v diode across the halogen so spikes would return to battery. 

I didn't get battery charging, but I found that the battery voltage went down incredibly slow for the amount of drain.
When same halogen bulb was connected directly across the batteries voltage dropped very fast.

PS: I think I will experiment with some of these Berkeley circuits.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 11, 2012, 04:27:55 PM
Apologies for quoting myself but just to show the relevance of this argument that is now spanning a 3rd POST  :o
 
Gravock ... I'm knee deep in my justification of the disconnected state of the Q2 MOSFETS.  I'll need to finish that and will get back here... But I've got to finish off that ruddy argument for MileHigh et al - or I'll forever be plagued with that absurd argument that that the battery can deliver any energy at all during the off period of the duty cycle. 
 
 Regards,
 Rosie
 

NOW.  All things being EQUAL.  When we CHANGE THAT SIGNAL at the gate of Q1 -  to an applied NEGATIVE SIGNAL... continued /...from the function generator, then the circuit is again OPEN.  That NEGATIVE voltage signal applied by the signal terminal - now induces a small NEGATIVE flow of current - to the GATE OF Q1.  Which, in turn, NOW REPELS the applied current flow from the battery supply source.  Those currents are in anti phase.  The current from the battery supply CAN NO LONGER CROSS THE BRIDGE.  THE CIRCUIT IS OPEN.  NO CURRENT CAN FLOW from the BATTERY SUPPLY.   

HOWEVER.  As MileHigh keeps telling you and as POYNTY keeps pointing to - as they both seem to be staking their LIVES on this their argument, - when the positive signal at the Gate of Q1 changes to a negative, then SIMULTANEOUSLY the applied signal at the SOURCE of Q1 is NOW POSTIVE.  NOW.  LOOK AT THE CIRCUIT SCHEMATIC.  You will see that the NEGATIVE TERMINAL of the signal generator is connected to the SOURCE leg of Q1 - and then onto the SOURCE of the battery terminal.  And this is LINKED to the Gate of Q2. THEREFORE, and in TRUTH, the signal that is NOW APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q2 is POSITIVE.  THEREFORE ALSO - they are arguing - THE CURRENT FLOW FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE IS NOW ENABLED VIA THE GATE OF Q2 IN THE SAME WAY AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ENABLED AT THE THE GATE OF Q1.

I'm interrupting this argument to repost that schematic.  That we can all be on the same page.
R
GUYS this is going into LOOP MODE again. Something's seriously wrong with this software of yours Harti.  I'm hoping this AMENDMENT WILL TAKE.  I NEED TO TAKE OUT THAT WAVEFORM.  AND TRY AND POST THE CORRECT SCHEMATIC.  If I don't get back here immediately - it's because I cant.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gyulasun on February 12, 2012, 01:07:07 AM
 Hi AbbaRue,

Sorry for ’chiming in’  I could not resist to share some of my views wrt your post on negative resistance circuits.       

The lecture paper you linked shows the so called cross coupled oscillators with  devices like MOSFETs and BJTs (bipolar junction transistor) devices.  Such circuits exhibit negative resistance between the MOSFETs drains or between the BJTs collectors as a result of positive feedback.  Positive feedback results when one device’s  control electrode (i.e. the gate of the MOSFET or base of the BJT) is connected to the other device’s  drain or collector electrode and vice versa, as shown in Page 12 in your link. 

You wrote:  Main difference is he used the drain  instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter.)

  Respectfully I disagree,  it Does Matter because without positive feedback these circuits do not manifest the negative resistance between the drains or between the collectors.  Here is a link
http://www.tubecad.com/2009/07/blog0166.htm (http://www.tubecad.com/2009/07/blog0166.htm)
 where the cross connection is shown between the gates and the cathodes  (of electric valves)  and here negative feedback is involved with such connections!  (I hope nobody is confused by seeing circuits with electric valves,  the cathode where electron emission happens can be viewed as the source electrode of a MOSFET or the emitter electrode of a BJT.)   These circuits are used for improving the linearity and distortion performance of (audio or other) amplifiers and this means no negative resistance creation possibility for such type of cross coupling because this would bring about oscillations at certain frequencies:  this would be a rather unwanted ’feature’  in linear amplifiers should such gate-cathode (or gate-source or base-emitter) cross coupled circuits create negative resistance.
So in Rosemary's circuit the cross coupling is shown between gates and sources of the MOSFETs and NOT between the gates and drains, hence there cannot be any positive feedback like shown in Page 12 of the paper, hence no oscillation due to negative resistance from the MOSFETs. (more on the oscillations in Rosemary circuit later below)

I have to notice also that the Naudin circuit you linked to uses a BJT in the ’inverse mode’  i.e. an NPN transistor’s emitter is biased to be positive (normally it should receive negative polarity) from a battery and its collector receives the negative battery polarity (normally it should be positive) so a reversed breakdown can happen in its C-E junction and this exhibits the negative resistance  (Cf  this with the Esaki tunnel diode or the Gunn diode etc which also have a negative resistance region  in their  voltage-current curve but by proper semiconductor doping.)   

So my note here refers to your text:  The MOSFET "Q2" who's source is not directly connected to the battery reminds me of it.  (i.e you meant Naudin’s 2N2222 circuit with its negative resistance)

So in Rosemary’s  circuit the source electrode of Q2 is indeed not directly connected to the battery but via the function generator.  I hope you agree with me that such function generators normally have 50 Ohm inner resistance so the source electrode is practically connected to the battery negative point via this 50 Ohm.  (And when a DC voltage shift is used at the output of the FG, the 50 Ohm still should be there by the FG inner circuit design, otherwise the specification for the output resistance is not fulfilled in that DC shift mode, what I doubt  so it is still 50 Ohm.  And the 50 Ohm output resistance can simply be checked by an Ohm meter part of a DMM, when the FG’s output level is turned down in the  few milliVolt range, not to fool the Ohm meter and also the DC shift feature is adjusted to zero should it be turned on.)  Can you agree with the connection of Q2’s source to the battery negative via the 50 Ohm inner resistance of the FG?

On you following single sentence:  Further study suggests that Q2 is functioning as a MOSFET Varactor. (page 25 of Berkeley article)   

I would like to notice that the varactor effect is shown between the gate and both the source and the drain electrodes (the latter two are connected together in Page 25 for both the N and P channel MOSFETs) and bias voltage for controlling the capacitance is connected to the body electrode of the MOSFET (a fourth electrode beside G, S and D) and in most power MOSFETs this fourth electrode is normally tied inside of the device to the source electrode. 

So I do not think Q2 can work as a varactor like it is shown in Page 25 BUT I can say that any MOSFET has a voltage dependent inter-electrode capacitance dependence and data sheets show this mainly for a 25V drain-source voltage and at zero gate-source control voltage and also they give a curve for all the three changing capacitances in the function of the full operational voltage range for a particular type.  And this changing inter-electrode capacitance dependence in the function of drain-source and gate-source voltages (in both AC and DC voltages' respect)  is of course true for Q1 in Rosemary's circuit as is true for any MOSFET used in any circuit.

Sorry again for mentioning these three topics in bold from your above post and share my opinion on them, I did not mean to steer up any quarrel or ’mockery’,  and I hope you or others here can agree with all the 3 notices of mine.  Of course you do not „have to” agree with me,  lol.

IT is very good you built the circuit and I would ask on your batteries’s  AmperHour  capacity, and what is the 555 pulse frequency you found perhaps the best, and how bright the halogen lamp was? i.e. any idea on its output power. 

Now briefly on Rosemary circuit oscillations:  what I think is that their battery bank is banged by heavy current pulses via the MOSFET switches and via the heater element with a frequency which corresponds to the battery bank’s resonant frequency (yes, batteries have a resonant frequency, see this link where 2 to 6MHz range is indicated for lead acid types: http://www.reuk.co.uk/Battery-Desulfation.htm (http://www.reuk.co.uk/Battery-Desulfation.htm) ).  Because of the high current pulses, I suspect the batteries develop heat and it would be good to learn from the team what battery temperatures were involved during the hours long tests,  in their paper they mentioned the cooking  of two batteries if I recall correctly and from this I assume the high battery temperatures (unless something else happened to those two batteries.)

Also I suspect that this heavy pulse ’bombardment’ of the batteries involves creating chemical reactions inside, this may be in connection with the team’s  claim of no need for recharging during the some month long test period, of course  I hypotese here with the chemical change inside, suggesting it as beneficial.  It would be good to learn in what condition these very same batteries are now:  can they still be used as normal batteries with similar AmperHour capacity performance now that there is no test period? Have these batteries been tested since the long circuit operation weeks and months are over, it would be a must I think .
Maybe I am mistaken with this battery resonant frequency excitation;  though maybe you could increase your test frequencies in the MHz range too and check the battery temperature too (do avoid boiling though, it can be dangerous). The above link on desulfation mentions using small current pulses at the resonant battery frequency.
Your using a inductor in series with the halogen lamp means that the recovered bemf is much higher than without it, so more part of the input current is stored in that inductance wrt to  the lamp’s own 250uH inductance,  hence the high voltage spikes manifest and more part of the input energy can get back for feeding the circuit.  A notice here also that using a higher value inductor in the team’s  circuit means to alter,  to change the original or the shown circuit…

On your sentence: "When same halogen bulb was connected directly across the batteries voltage dropped very fast."   
Please notice that a direct connection is not at all equivalent to a switched connection (the latter happens via your MOSFET of course),  perhaps the best comparison in performance would involve a known quantity of water or cooking oil heating  (this latter can isolate better electrically) for a certain time, this has already been discussed but perhaps not applied correctly, I do not know. 

Thanks, 

Gyula
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 12, 2012, 02:20:22 AM
The two "V"s in that circuit represent the two voltage measuring channels of an oscilloscope, do they not? The negative (ground) leads are shown connected at the same point, between the battery and the shunt resistor, as is proper. However.... unless special pains are taken, or a fully isolated scope like the Fluke ScopeMeter 199 is used, all the instrument "grounds" will be common through the instrument and line wiring itself. Thus, the Function Generator ground will also be electrically connected to the scope probe grounds back through the instrument wiring, effectively shorting out the shunt resistor, and if a voltage offset is used in the FG output things get even more problematic.

I don't know if the actual test setup that is claimed to have been used in the "experiment" had this problem... but if the circuit shown above was used, with ordinary instruments plugged into the wall, then it likely did have.

I illustrated some of the problems with this sort of cross-talk and "groundloop" in a video, as usual, long ago. The pertinent part concerning isolation starts at about 6:30; the first part is just about the Fluke and its ability to resolve short or long duty cycles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM)

Note that the circuit still "runs", with larger oscillations and spikes, when the battery is "disconnected" from the circuit by removing the negative power connection. What's not obvious.... unless you are careful.... is that the battery is actually STILL CONNECTED to the circuit through the earth ground and the scope and FG signal grounds.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 02:38:52 AM
I have just noticed these posts - from AbbaRue and Gyula.  And, indeed, just looked at Professor Niknejad's file.  Very interesting.  Not that I can understand those equations.  Now.  Gyula.  I get it that you're an authority on those MOSFETS.  And I get it that you're refuting the relevance of Niknejad's work to our own based on AbbaRue's mistaken assumption that, as he puts it - 'Main difference is he used the drain  instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter.)' which is referenced here.

...The lecture paper you linked shows the so called cross coupled oscillators with  devices like MOSFETs and BJTs (bipolar junction transistor) devices.  Such circuits exhibit negative resistance between the MOSFETs drains or between the BJTs collectors as a result of positive feedback. Positive feedback results when one device’s  control electrode (i.e. the gate of the MOSFET or base of the BJT) is connected to the other device’s drain or collector electrode and vice versa, as shown in Page 12 in your link. You wrote:  Main difference is he used the drain  instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter.)
Unlike you I'm NOT an expert.  But it occurs to me that AbbaRue's conclusions are 'on the money'.  The fact is that those oscillations should persist IF one transposes  'P Channel MOSFET's appropriately on that circuit.  In which event the DRAIN would indeed be used instead of the source.  And I'm ENTIRELY satisfied that IF we we replaced our own with the P Channel type then we would, MOST CERTAINLY manage the same oscillations for the same extended durations.

Then with respect to this comment from a previous post on another thread.
...This means that if you have a 200V max drain-source voltage rated n-channel MOSFET, the body diode is reverse biased all the way up to 200V as long as the drain gets max 200V positive DC or peak AC with respect to the source electrode. The moment the drain voltage goes negative with respect to the source electrode, the body diode gets forward biased (if the voltage difference gets higher than 0.8-1V of course in the forward direction) so current can flow via the body diode, regardless of the control voltage between the source-gate electrodes.
Of course, if you exceed the max 200V drain-source voltage rating the manufacturer defined for a particular MOSFET type, then the device will gradually start conducting current between its drain-source path, either via the reverse biased body diode or via the drain-source electrodes, bringing the MOSFET gradually or suddenly into a destruction process.
I've highlighted the point at issue.

You are here describing our standard 'runaway' parasitic oscillation.  This is most certainly the result of paralleled transistors.  And you are also on the money.  BUT.  There is nothing STANDARD about the oscillation that our circuit manages.  In the first instance the paralleling of those MOSFETs at Q2 is not a required condition to generate that oscillation - as I've mentioned - everywhere.  And the relationship between Q1 and Q2 is absolutely NOT in parallel - as you yourself, realise.  Then the oscillation does not DEGRADE as is ALWAYS evident in a parasitic oscillation.  Then FINALLY - our MOSFETS are apparently conducting current way in excess of it's rated tolerance levels without any evident degradation at all.  And that they're still entirely in tact is really easy to demonstrate and prove.  So.  The question persists.  How is it that those transistors can conduct energy from the battery supply when the battery is NOT in a closed circuit condition?  You also seem to think that the negative terminal of the function generator can carry this relatively HIGH current flow from the gate of Q2 to the source - or as Poynty Point refers to it - to the Negative Terminal of the battery supply.  While there is INDEED a bridge between the function generator's probes - with an appropriate signal charge at Q2 - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE WAVEFORM TAKEN ACROSS THOSE TRANSISTORS THAT CAN ACCOUNT FOR THAT HIGH CURRENT FLOW.  Quite apart from which, I'm in the process of arguing WHY it is that the battery CANNOT conduct.  Are my comments that irrelevant that you can simply IGNORE them?  Please bear in mind that we have what looks like a normal parasitic oscillation PERSISTING over an extended period that in, no way, compromises the material of those transistors. 

 With reference to this question to AbbaRue - if I may presume to answer it...
Can you agree with the connection of Q2’s source to the battery negative via the 50 Ohm inner resistance of the FG?
You are RIGHT.  BUT there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE OF THIS CONDUCTION IN OUR WAVEFORMS.  May I refer you to our previous waveform details.  I'll take the trouble to download this again when I've posted here.  I think that, on the whole, this entire subject is very easily dismissed if one also takes the trouble to IGNORE the evidence.  But I'm not sure that ignoring the evidence will entirely answer the questions. With respect.

Regards,
Rosemary
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 02:49:16 AM
Gyula,

Here - I hope - is the typical waveform detail.  Note the blue trace during the period when the oscillation occurs.  THAT is absolutely ALL the voltage that is evident during this period.  It is NOT reflecting the flow of high current from anywhere at all.  And ignore the file name.  It was first intended for MileHigh.  But he cannot understand the significance. Sadly.

Again, regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 12, 2012, 02:57:53 AM
Remember these, from hhoforvolts..... be sure to read the descriptions and hhoforvolts's comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZfkrsH_USo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZfkrsH_USo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfvEak7rV7g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfvEak7rV7g)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 03:02:53 AM
And here, I hope, is another example of that voltage across those transistors.  This sample is of particular interest because it results in a voltage swing at the batteries that actually take it below zero - for very brief durations.  And we all KNOW that for the battery to deliver that much energy in such brief moments - then we'd be dealing with something that could probably power entire household requirements.  So.  It's clearly NOT energy that is coming from the battery supply.

BUT please note this much.  The voltage at the switch is absolutely NOT consistent with those high voltage spikes.  Wherever it is that this current is moving from and to - it is NOT through the signal terminals - else it WOULD be evident on the voltage across those transistors.  (the blue trace)

Again,
Rosemary

added the most of this post.  Just needed to see that I'd uploaded the right file. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 04:25:55 AM
My Dear MileHigh,

The only way I 'errored'  - as Poynty puts it - is when I assumed that you had the wherewithall to understand the niceties of my argument.  I was in the process of explaining all this when I was broadsided by the unexpected though partial endorsement by Gravock for our thesis.  No sooner was that managed than AbbaRue proposed to take the circuit seriously.  Which shows a commendable impartiality which is a rare and 'wondrous' thing.  Especially given the excess of ego that usually litters this thread.  However, given a bit more time for the shock of all this this dissipate - then I'll resume that explanation.  But it will require that you read it.  Which may tax your patience.  I only assure you that you WILL be rewarded.

And, unlike others - whatever their level of credential - I am MOST happy to acknowledge when I've been on a learning curve.  The question is - are you? And your comments are valid.  I SHOULD indeed have pointed out what trace relates to what.  Abject apologies.  Here's that list.

IN ALL OUR DOWNLOADS
The blue trace is across Q1 which corresponds to the signal terminals (both) .
The Orange/yellow trace is across the shunt
The Red trace is the sum of the voltages across the shunt and the battery
The Lilac/Cerise trace is across the battery
Integrations - like the sum - usually refer to the orange and Cerise (battery and shunt - but given as voltages)

If I've left out any, then let me know.  And now, MilesUpThere - could you PLEASE take careful note of that BLUE TRACE.  Quite apart from the argument that will follow - where I will FINALLY PROVE that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the battery can be discharging any current during the 'OFF' period of those duty cycles - just NOTA BENE - as ever.  THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE OF THE BATTERY DISCHARGING THROUGH THOSE SWITCHES OR ANYWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF THOSE PROBES. You will recall that this was the cornerstone, the lynchpin of your argument. 

ALSO.  I have NEVER disputed that there is a FLOW OF CURRENT from the battery during the ON PERIOD of the duty cycle - subject to the required setting of the function generator's offset switch.  WHAT I am ACTUALLY REFERRING TO - is the manifest miracle of so much current flowing in that oscillation - DURING the OFF period of the duty cycle - when there is NO EVIDENCE of a commensurate INCREASE in the voltage across the switch.  Without this increase - then one must think?  Surely?  Where does all that current come from?  Where does all that current go?  How does it sidestep that switch?  Well.  That's what I HOPE TO EXPLAIN.  Eventually.  It's just that there are way more distractions than I can comfortably deal with.  I am, after all, merely mortal.

Kindest regards MileHigh.  I value your excessive smugness.  The more so as I hope to put a dent in it.  One day.  LOL

Rosie Pose.
 :-*

added
Highlighted the trace details
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 04:05:25 PM
Ok.  Hopefully I can conclude that tedious explanation of the properties in a simple N channel MOSFET and put MileHigh's - Poynty's - Professor's - Guyula's and everyone who subscribes to their argument - too many to list here - TO BED.

Now.  We're looking at a negative signal at that Gate of Q1.  And, conversely, we're looking at a positive signal at the gate of Q2.  And that positive signal is imposed on that gate of Q2 from the ground terminal of the signal generator.  In effect there is a small current imposed on that gap.  And your argument is that this then allows the current from the battery supply to cross over - piggy back a ride - directly from that gate signal to the source rail (battery negative).  Effectively the argument is that the circuit REMAINS CLOSED. 

IF this was indeed the case, then we would see a HUGE spike in the voltage across the switch, during this oscillation period, as the voltage from the battery supply would be sharing a path with this flow of current.  BUT NO ATTENDANT VOLTAGE IS EVIDENT - which was argued before.  But.  More to the point. The battery needs must first apply it's current to the drain Q2 drain - which then needs to cross that BRIDGE - Q2 gate - and THEN?  It needs to find its way to it's OWN source Q2 source - its OWN battery terminal negative.  Otherwise it will ASSUME that the circuit is still open.  And it would not discharge any current at all.

For some reason you are all ASSUMING that the battery needs only reference it's negative terminal - it's path to ground - across that bridge provided by the signal generator.  You forget that the signal generator itself is ONLY PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to that source rail or the battery's terminal THROUGH ITS OWN SIGNAL AND GROUND TERMINALS.  They are spatially SEPARATE. And what separates them is not only the resistance in the signal terminal - BUT ALSO - 1000 Ohms or thereby of resistance which applies that signal.  You are all - rather simplistically, I might add, assuming that the bridge is managed - across empty space.  LOOK AGAIN at the circuit.  The battery's connection at Q2 source is THROUGH THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  There is absolutely NO OTHER CONNECTION.  That 'line' that you ASSUME is connecting Q2 gate to the battery negative - is ONLY enabling the signal - at the bridge - Q2 Gate.  It's there.  It's been PROVIDED for.  But it CANNOT BE CROSSED by the current from the battery supply - unless it sends its current across empty space, - unless it 'leap frogs' across about 4 inches of nothing at all - to reach its battery negative.  IT WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO CROSS that gap which is there on the CIRCUIT. It just cannot happen. 

Which means that it would then need to take that circuitous march through the signal's ground terminal through all that resistance in the machine itself - then through to the signal terminal itself - to get to back to it's own ground - that battery negative terminal.  Also highly improbable - as this would fry those delicate components.  I do hope that you see this.  You have all made a GROSS PRESUMPTION.  You have looked at a circuit line across two gates - and ASSUMED that this also connected the circuit apparatus.  You have ALL 'ERRORED' - to put it as Poynty puts it.  But I'm delighted to have this opportunity of putting you right.  It seems that those of us who are intellectually challenged - are still urgently required.  Else the simplicity of these components and their functions - will become unnecessarily and unduly snarled in erroneous assumptions that have nothing to do with the apparatus nor the tests at hand.

Regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 12, 2012, 05:44:50 PM
It's quite fortunate Stefan that this thread only attracts a few readers;

The sort of gibberish and rubbish being posted here by Rosemary beggars belief!

Ok.  Hopefully I can conclude that tedious explanation of the properties in a simple N channel MOSFET and put MileHigh's - Poynty's - Professor's - Guyula's and everyone who subscribes to their argument - too many to list here - TO BED.

Now.  We're looking at a negative signal at that Gate of Q1.  And, conversely, we're looking at a positive signal at the gate of Q2.  And that positive signal is imposed on that gate of Q2 from the ground terminal of the signal generator.  In effect there is a small current imposed on that gap.  And your argument is that this then allows the current from the battery supply to cross over - piggy back a ride - directly from that gate signal to the source rail (battery negative).  Effectively the argument is that the circuit REMAINS CLOSED. 

IF this was indeed the case, then we would see a HUGE spike in the voltage across the switch, during this oscillation period, as the voltage from the battery supply would be sharing a path with this flow of current.  BUT NO ATTENDANT VOLTAGE IS EVIDENT - which was argued before.  But.  More to the point. The battery needs must first apply it's current to the drain Q2 drain - which then needs to cross that BRIDGE - Q2 gate - and THEN?  It needs to find its way to it's OWN source Q2 source - its OWN battery terminal negative.  Otherwise it will ASSUME that the circuit is still open.  And it would not discharge any current at all.

For some reason you are all ASSUMING that the battery needs only reference it's negative terminal - it's path to ground - across that bridge provided by the signal generator.  You forget that the signal generator itself is ONLY PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to that source rail or the battery's terminal THROUGH ITS OWN SIGNAL AND GROUND TERMINALS.  They are spatially SEPARATE. And what separates them is not only the resistance in the signal terminal - BUT ALSO - 1000 Ohms or thereby of resistance which applies that signal.  You are all - rather simplistically, I might add, assuming that the bridge is managed - across empty space.  LOOK AGAIN at the circuit.  The battery's connection at Q2 source is THROUGH THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  There is absolutely NO OTHER CONNECTION.  That 'line' that you ASSUME is connecting Q2 gate to the battery negative - is ONLY enabling the signal - at the bridge - Q2 Gate.  It's there.  It's been PROVIDED for.  But it CANNOT BE CROSSED by the current from the battery supply - unless it sends its current across empty space, - unless it 'leap frogs' across about 4 inches of nothing at all - to reach its battery negative.  IT WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO CROSS that gap which is there on the CIRCUIT. It just cannot happen. 

Which means that it would then need to take that circuitous march through the signal's ground terminal through all that resistance in the machine itself - then through to the signal terminal itself - to get to back to it's own ground - that battery negative terminal.  Also highly improbable - as this would fry those delicate components.  I do hope that you see this.  You have all made a GROSS PRESUMPTION.  You have looked at a circuit line across two gates - and ASSUMED that this also connected the circuit apparatus.  You have ALL 'ERRORED' - to put it as Poynty puts it.  But I'm delighted to have this opportunity of putting you right.  It seems that those of us who are intellectually challenged - are still urgently required.  Else the simplicity of these components and their functions - will become unnecessarily and unduly snarled in erroneous assumptions that have nothing to do with the apparatus nor the tests at hand.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 12, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
In fact, the BEST way to describe Rosemary's nonsensical posts, would be to use Rosemary's own words (she's now gone back and heavily edited the post to delete the following):

Quote
Nope.  There's absolutely no logical sequence or sense to anything you've written here.  I've given it my best shot.  It lacks clarity - sense - and reason.  On the whole it reads like a shoddy piece of propagandising - rendered ineffective as it leaves the reader confused.  You need to do better.

and

Quote
More of the same.  Just a confused mishmash of illogical nonsense.  No idea what you're referring to.  No idea what your complaint is.  No idea what you're on about.  Try using sense when you use the English language.  It's meant to be a tool to advance understanding.  Not to diminish it.

It's ironic that she was directing this at recent posters here.  ::)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 06:51:03 PM
.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 07:40:32 PM
It seems that I have not been clear.  Let me try this again.

My dear Poynty Point and MileHigh,

The source rail - that leg of Q2 that requires a DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE SOURCE or the NEGATIVE TERMINAL OF THE BATTERY - is NOT connected to that SOURCE RAIL.  It is ONLY connected to the negative terminal of the function generator.  That negative terminal of the function generator is its only path back to the common SOURCE RAIL or battery negative terminal.  Its ONLY PATH back to that battery is THROUGH the function generator and then back through the signal terminal to the SOURCE.  They are SPATIALLY SEPARATED ON OUR APPARATUS BY A GOOD 4 inches.  There is NO OTHER PATH. 

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE BATTERY TO DISCHARGE ITS CURRENT DIRECTLY ONTO THE GATE OF THE Q2.  It REQUIRES A PASSAGE from the drain leg - ACROSS THE GATE LEG - then THROUGH THE SOURCE LEG.  It cannot BYPASS it's own SOURCE LEG.  JUST CAN'T BE DONE.  And it's source leg is FLOATING.  And IF it were to borrow the signal directly from the gate through the negative terminal - it would need to find it's path through the function generator to the signal probe.  There is no other access to the negative terminal of the battery. 

Therefore, that circuit is OPEN.  The battery simply CANNOT discharge current.  NOR DOES IT.  Check out those waveforms again.  NOW.  I KNOW it can't be done.  But the evidence supports this conclusion.  IT clearly is NOT happening.  LOOK AGAIN AT THOSE BLUE TRACES.  Then tell us all how it is that all that current can be discharged WITHOUT TAKING THE VOLTAGE WAVEFORM TO ANYTHING GREATER THAN ZERO?  LOOK AT THAT OSCILLATION.  It STAYS BELOW ZERO.  IT IS BARELY MORE THAN NOISE. Yet you're trying to argue that this switch is ON?

I am reminded of those many discussions between various members and your good selves - where you DENY the facts - REGARDLESS.  I trust that there are those readers here who are aware of this technique - where denial becomes the whole of the argument.  And scorn the method of it's delivery.  Neither are scientific.

Kindest regards nonetheless.
Rosie Pose
added the point that the voltage during the oscillating phase of the switching cycle - and across the switch - is barely more than noise. Which hardly speaks to the WILD voltage swings that are evident on that circuit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 08:19:50 PM
Ok Guys, I think that really what's called for is some synopsis of those arguments that Poynty Point relies on to DISMISS our claim for his over unity prize. 

He states that the battery discharges a negative current flow.  This is wrong.
He states that the circuit is permanently closed.  This is wrong
He states that power is conserved.  I don't even know what he means.
He states that a current flow from a battery can bypass it's own source leg.  This is alarming.
He states that there is no significance to that self-sustained oscillation.  This is also alarming.
He argues nothing and states everything.  And all his statements are variously fallacious, misleading, intentionally obtuse and irrelevant
Especially as it relates to his opinion about me in any personal context at all.

I get the distinct impression that he doesn't like me.  But that's neither here nor there.  His prize was not offered on the condition of first 'liking' someone.

He then requires it as a condition of demonstration that he applies his rather corrupted measurement protocols - (that inverted probe number) so that he can then skew the results and deny us our claim and thereby deny us our rights to his prize.

He is patently unable to adjudicate any results based on an impartial assessment of the evidence using standard accepted methods of analysis.  Therefore he should, by rights, withdraw his prize - or, alternatively, move heaven and earth to confirm our claim.  Else he is CLEARLY not promoting evidence of over unity - but rather - he is deliberately FRUSTRATING IT.

And if this hard work of mine that has now spanned a full month - brings nothing else to fruition - I trust it will alert those many readers here to that 'agenda' that I allude to repeatedly.  There are those forum owners whose sole intention it is to DIMINISH any evidence of over unity - using whatever methods they can manage.

And just as a small reminder of SOME of the extent of our claim.  We are able to dissipate energy at a workstation of a circuit without any discharge of any energy at all from a battery supply source.  The level of energy dissipated can be enough to bring water to boil.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 added.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 09:09:13 PM
Gravock, regarding this post of yours as it relates to a discussion of the electron.

An electron is an integration of electromagnetic waves.  We can define the electron as deformed magnetic space, propagated in wave form.  Now an electron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiraling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation.

The so-called orbits K-L-M'0 are nothing but stationary electrical waves in the field of the atom, each having its particular wave structure and frequency. It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space.
I can't comment.  Our own contention is that current flow has little - if anything - to do with the flow of electrons.  Rather what we know of as the flow of current is here proposed to be the flow of 'raw' charge.  And that charge is proposed to comprise magnetic particles being transferred as a field through the circuit.  This is not strictly in terms of conventional concepts - but this model has the real merit of defining the magnetic field - in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force.  In line with this and in line with conventional concepts - we assume that radio signals and light - rely exclusively on photons - that irradiate outwards from a source.  Which means that there would be no interference.  But I am not sure that photons are able to generate a field, any more than an electron can generate, propagate, or move as a 'field'.  Nor, indeed, can any of our known stable particles.  And it is the 'field' described by Faraday's Lines of Force - that is best answered by arguing that it may comprise this dipolar tachyon.

Regarding this quote of yours which I'm simply copying over here.
Quote from: gravityblock
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.
Below is a quote I made earlier in this thread.  This issue must be settled before we know how to correctly measure the device, IMO.
Again.  I don't think any of us can argue the positive and negative current flows in terms of this convention.  But when you claim that the  'direction of the force remains the same' then I'm not sure that this is correct.  We know that we can run a current through a circuit with polarised LED's that only light when the current flow is negative or positive.  Which speaks to a varying 'direction of force'.  Unless, obviously, I've misunderstood you.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 12, 2012, 09:33:12 PM
The only point still outstanding in this thread - is some kind of answer from Professor Steven E Jones.  I'm posting over my offer to him to do this demonstration in a context where the results will be unequivocal.  If I don't hear from him it's because he's in bed with Poynty Point and I doubt that he'll care to 'rock that boat' or 'upset that applecart' as clearly there is some kind of advantage.  Some kind of 'quid pro quo'.  Clearly Professor it not prepared to simply apply standard measurements and nor is he, apparently, in a position to evaluate our own applied measurement protocols as explained in that paper.  This is possibly because his expertise is in chemistry.

Here's that proposed test which would, indeed be conclusive.
Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

As detailed I'm happy to do this test with sundry caveats that I'll reference hereafter.
Regards again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 12, 2012, 10:49:45 PM
What's really called for here guys, is for Rosemary to get off her butt, stop making excuses, and either make the proper measurements as she's been advised to several times, or use another method, also as advised.

Mags' suggestion to compare two sets of batteries and loads is fine, but it requires a lot of work and time in terms of setting everything up and acquiring more batteries etc. And moreover, she is refusing to perform this test UNLESS her caveats are satisfied. How droll.

A simpler, easier, and quicker definitive method to determine if the circuit is indeed using energy from the batteries or not, is to implement the test per the following diagram. The RATS have NOT done this test on the apparatus for which the claims are based, and anything less than this does not qualify as proof. Now, we all know that Rosemary is going to say she has already done this test, but there has been no proof offered to convincingly demonstrate that this test was performed on the same apparatus referred to in the papers, and in the video. When and until such evidence is provided, it will be assumed that this test has NOT been performed as described.

The test is extremely simple to set up. Once done, it's only a matter of observing which, if either of the bulbs, illuminate. It's that simple. After ensuring that both bulbs function normally, install them for the test.

If only the "Current Supplied" bulb illuminates, then the circuit uses battery energy and it is over all "underunity".

If only the "Current Returned" bulb illuminates, then the circuit returns more energy to the battery than it uses, and it is over all "overunity".

If neither bulb illuminates and the circuit is running and heating the element, then once again it would be overunity. (However, if neither bulb illuminates, it would first be prudent to try several lower wattage bulbs before jumping to this conclusion).

If both bulbs illuminate, then it would have to be determined which is dissipating the most power, especially if it is not obvious by their relative intensities.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gyulasun on February 12, 2012, 10:59:14 PM
...
Unlike you I'm NOT an expert.  But it occurs to me that AbbaRue's conclusions are 'on the money'.  The fact is that those oscillations should persist IF one transposes  'P Channel MOSFET's appropriately on that circuit.  In which event the DRAIN would indeed be used instead of the source.  And I'm ENTIRELY satisfied that IF we we replaced our own with the P Channel type then we would, MOST CERTAINLY manage the same oscillations for the same extended durations.
... 

 Dear Rosemary,
I understand that you welcome any positive comments (or seemingly favorable comments) from your final goal  points of view  and basically I do agree with AbbaRue’s approach to take the trouble of actually building  your shown circuit.  And now I have come and objected his three  observations…  Sorry for this, I am not against him,  I am not against you,  I simply felt oblidged to shed some scientific light onto his three observations. 
Unfortunately,  I have to make a notice for you (referring to your above text) that in case you would use P channel  MOSFETs in that circuit, the circuit's basic topology like connecting a gate to a drain would not be needed to change.  Changing  an N channel FET to a P channel  one it is either  the supply voltage polarity you need to change or you can use mirror image of the circuit and original supply polarity remains the same.  See what I mean in the Berkeley link AbbaRue kindly showed, http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/142/pdf/lect23.pdf (http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/142/pdf/lect23.pdf)  in Page 12, on the left hand side the P channel, on the right hand side the N channel version is shown.      Also, see Page 17 on its left hand side:  the circuit shows a fully P channel MOSFET oscillator,  the cross connection is nowhere shown changing, gates go to the drains in cases of both the N and the P channel devices.           AND on the right hand side of Page 17 there is shown a mixture of P channel cross connection (upper part of the schematic) and an N channel cross connection (lower part).

Now the next notice of mine for you (which might be the last one on this topic) addresses what you wrote I quote:  "You are here describing our standard 'runaway' parasitic oscillation.  This is most certainly the result of paralleled transistors."                           

No, I did not mean ’standard runaway parasitic oscillation’…   This is like I say apple and you say another fruit but not apple, sorry.  I clearly described what I meant in the text from which you quoted: what may happen when a 200V maximum drain-source voltage rated MOSFET receives higher than 200V between its drain-source electrode.  In your circuit you use IRFPG50 types which have 1000V max drain-source voltage ratings and you have never showed any oscillatains that have approached 1000V or even say 500V, hence we cannot talk about the situation I was describing with the 200V MOSFET type. 

Regards,
Gyula
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on February 12, 2012, 11:15:46 PM
What's really called for here guys, is for Rosemary to get off her butt, stop making excuses, and either make the proper measurements as she's been advised to several times, or use another method, also as advised.

Mags' suggestion to compare two sets of batteries and loads is fine, but it requires a lot of work and time in terms of setting everything up and acquiring more batteries etc. And moreover, she is refusing to perform this test UNLESS her caveats are satisfied. How droll.

A simpler, easier, and quicker definitive method to determine if the circuit is indeed using energy from the batteries or not, is to implement the test per the following diagram. The RATS have NOT done this test on the apparatus for which the claims are based, and anything less than this does not qualify as proof. Now, we all know that Rosemary is going to say she has already done this test, but there has been no proof offered to convincingly demonstrate that this test was performed on the same apparatus referred to in the papers, and in the video. When and until such evidence is provided, it will be assumed that this test has NOT been performed as described.

The test is extremely simple to set up. Once done, it's only a matter of observing which, if either of the bulbs, illuminate. It's that simple. After ensuring that both bulbs function normally, install them for the test.

If only the "Current Supplied" bulb illuminates, then the circuit uses battery energy and it is over all "underunity".

If only the "Current Returned" bulb illuminates, then the circuit returns more energy to the battery than it uses, and it is over all "overunity".

If neither bulb illuminates and the circuit is running and heating the element, then once again it would be overunity. (However, if neither bulb illuminates, it would first be prudent to try several lower wattage bulbs before jumping to this conclusion).

If both bulbs illuminate, then it would have to be determined which is dissipating the most power, especially if it is not obvious by their relative intensities.

.99

Can you suggest what light bulbs to use that would not affect the circuit operation due to changing resistance when heating? Voltage, watts.

And also suggest what diodes to use?  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on February 12, 2012, 11:20:40 PM
Maybe low ohm non inductive resistors instead of the bulbs, then monitored via 2 scope probes? Then there is no question of inverted functions and such, because the directional diodes determine that.

Mags


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 12, 2012, 11:44:45 PM
Maybe low ohm non inductive resistors instead of the bulbs, then monitored via 2 scope probes? Then there is no question of inverted functions and such, because the directional diodes determine that.

Mags

Mags, this would work also, yes.

Here's how I would do it. Note that you could also use voltage meters in place of oscilloscope channels. We are interested in the average current in both directions, and a voltage meter set on DC volts will reliably measure that for us.

If using a scope however, ENSURE THAT NO SCOPE OR FG PROBES ARE STILL PRESENTLY CONNECTED TO THE RAT CIRCUIT.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 12, 2012, 11:55:12 PM
For the diodes, I would suggest any of the following:

MUR1540
MUR840G
STTH8R04D

Anything with about 400V rating and at least 8A capability.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 12, 2012, 11:58:40 PM
Mags, this would work also, yes.

Here's how I would do it. Note that you could also use voltage meters in place of oscilloscope channels. We are interested in the average current in both directions, and a voltage meter set on DC volts will reliably measure that for us.

If using a scope however, ENSURE THAT NO SCOPE PROBES ARE STILL PRESENTLY CONNECTED TO THE RAT CIRCUIT.

.99

I'm glad you put in that last part. As I have tried to point out before, unless special pains are taken, in most cases with common instruments, including most oscilloscopes like the LeCroy Rosemary is using, and most function generators..... ALL PROBE GROUNDS (for non-differential probes) and ALL FG GROUNDS (negative leads, shields) will be COMMON and will provide current paths through the instruments themselves--- paths which will be unmonitored. Hence, if ANY of these grounds are connected to points in the circuit which are at different potentials -- AS SHOWN IN ROSEMARY'S CIRCUIT DIAGRAM ABOVE -- there will be current flow.

The Fluke ScopeMeters 123 and 199 have fully-isolated grounds, so the channels can be used completely independently (up to 600V difference in the grounds). But just about every other instrument I can think of has all probe grounds connected internally, and to the chassis ground which is probably connected to the linecord ground pin. Ditto the FGs-- the "shield" or negative output lead may be connected to the chassis ground which is connected to the line cord ground pin.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 13, 2012, 12:02:23 AM
Thanks TK.

I forgot about the FG probes. I've edited my post to include the FG.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 12:12:45 AM
My dear Gyula,
I not only did not object to your input - but welcomed it.  I only tried to argue the point that we could most certainly get that effect mirrored with the use of P-channel MOSFETS.  Which I thought was relevant.

What I do argue - strongly - is that Q2 source is able to conduct current from the battery supply.  Not only can it not do this - unless it literally moves through the Function Generator to reach the signal terminal - but it would then deal with considerably more resistance than the 50 Ohms resistance of that probe.  I trust you see that the Q2's source leg is absolutely NOT connected to the battery source rail or negative terminal as Poynty needs to refer to it.  And I have been given every assurance that the current from the battery supply would need to move through that leg of the MOSFET if it was to discharge current.  Else it simply cannot discharge current flow.  It remains disconnected. 

Regarding parastic oscillations - I really only meant to draw your attention to the unusual nature of this oscillation.  But you are right.  We do not, typically, deal with  voltages that would unduly punish the voltage tolerance of those transistors.  We have, in fact, run tests where the voltages are in excess of the 1200 volts but that's for very, very short durations and I have not included samples in our paper.  My quarrel, if I have one, is that you have assumed, like everyone else, that there is a 'path' for the current from the battery directly onto the gate of Q1 to the gate of Q2 - thereby bypassing the source leg of Q2.  Which means that you are also, thereby, assuming that the battery is somehow responsible for the all the current that is measured above zero in that oscillation.  Which is simply not the case.  We would - most certainly - see this in the voltage across that switch.  And there's virtually no significant voltage there at all.

But.  Having said that - I am most grateful for your input.  You raised points about the battery and how long it lasted.  I didn't address this because I didn't want to lose the focus.  Frankly I was hoping you'd look again at that oscillation and try and puzzle it's existence assuming that the battery discharge of current was not in the equation.  Also, I'm delighted that you engaged at all.  You are clearly an expert.  Much needed in this discussion.  So thank you very much.  And should you look again at the question related to the battery current flow through Q2 - then I'd be very grateful indeed.

But there are yet other questions in this circuit of ours that seem to be eluding you all.  And I would be glad if you could address them - when and if you have the time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 12:19:42 AM
For example:
Here at this location I have an old WaveTek VCG Model III FG, a Philips PM6676 counter, and an HP180 scope. The WaveTek has isolated signal outputs: neither output lead connects to the chassis ground, but the chassis ground does connect to the linecord ground pin. The Philips counter and the scope both have their output/probe grounds connected to the chassis and the linecord ground pins. Normally I run an output from the FG into the Philips counter for precise freq display, and a second output from the FG to the scope and to the circuit under examination. Do you see the problem? Even though the FG is isolated, by hooking it up to the Philips and the scope, all grounds are now common, even the FG's "shield" or negative polarity output. Now the FG's case/chassis IS connected to the grounds, through the line cords and the probe leads, and if I feed the FG's signal in some circuit with the negative lead NOT at a ground point.... current will flow that is not monitored.

When this geometry is understood, it's easy to see how a "disconnected" battery can still receive -- or supply-- current through a probe lead--- as I showed in one of the videos I posted earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 12:23:45 AM
Golly Pointy Point.  Your manners, as ever, are loutish.  I have no intention of redoing the test that you propose.  And nor is it definitive.  Now.  I know that you never read my posts.  More's the pity.  BUT LET ME EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN.  We have DONE THAT TEST.  We used LED's.  Two opposing banks.  The ONE BANK STAYS LIT CONTINUOUSLY.  The other doesn't light at all.  This notwithstanding the reversing current flow.  This speaks to our analysis of that charge property in the current.  One day - I'm rather hoping - that you'll actually take the trouble to READ our paper.  Then you'll know what we're CLAIMING and not what you THINK we're claiming.

As ever,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 12:28:57 AM
Golly Pointy Point.  Your manners, as ever, are loutish.  I have no intention of redoing the test that you propose.  And nor is it definitive.  Now.  I know that you never read my posts.  More's the pity.  BUT LET ME EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN.  We have DONE THAT TEST.  We used LED's.  Two opposing banks.  The ONE BANK STAYS LIT CONTINUOUSLY.  The other doesn't light at all.   This notwithstanding the reversing current flow.  This speaks to our analysis of that charge property in the current.  One day - I'm rather hoping - that you'll actually take the trouble to READ our paper.  Then you'll know what we're CLAIMING and not what you THINK we're claiming.

As ever,
Rosie Pose.

One bank doesn't light at all.... notwithstanding the reversed current flow.

Do you see? No matter what you do, miracles happen. Reversed current flow happens, even if your best instrumentation or experiments don't show it... because it's an AINS-LIE circuit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 01:09:56 AM
Guys, just to remind you all.  This is Mags' proposal for a DEFINITIVE TEST.

Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 01:13:14 AM
Here's the list of caveats to doing that test.

Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.   :o Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   8)

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.
 

I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 01:15:28 AM
And here's WHY those caveats are required.
Dear Magsy,

You're on the money.  As ever.  NOW.  That argument is PRECISELY the argument that BP used when they evaluated our circuit.  We had to do these tests over days and weeks where we tested one against the other in a series of tests that were designed to give UNEQUIVOCAL RESULTS.  We included those EXACT PARAMETERS.  We checked voltage drops against a control.  Exactly as you've suggested.  We even did that exact comparison in those tests that we published in Quantum.  Over a 17 hour test duration we found that the control was flat when our circuit batteries had barely discharged a fraction of a volt.   A Professor Jandrell at WITS university - reviewed that paper.  IN HIS WISDOM he REFUSED TO LET US PUBLISH THOSE SCHEDULES.  For the first time in HISTORY an academic required that we DECREASE the data forwarded as evidence rather than ADD to it.  Which may or may not be construed as a deliberate attempt to diminish that evidence.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  Our academics are no fools.  IF INDEED - the argument hinged on the evidence against an ACTUAL APPLICATION - and if that evidence related to an EVALUATION OF THE CHEMISTRY OF THOSE BATTERIES - which is begged by that argument - then HIS OBJECTIONS ARE VALID.  And our academics know better than pose an objection if it is NOT first VALID - ON WHATEVER GROUNDS.

SO.  The irony is this.  Since that event - then the entire THRUST of all objections to our claim is this - LET IT RUN.  Just run it for as long as required and then come back - in a year or two and represent that CLAIM.  I am on RECORD.  It is entirely UNREASONABLE TO SIMPLY RUN OUR OWN CIRCUIT AND GAUGE BATTERY DRAW DOWNS.  THERE ARE NONE.  CONVERSELY.  It is entirely REASONABLE to simply run our own circuit against a control and COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE.  That's definitely DOABLE.  But it will involve me in an ENORMOUS amount of time, and even the expenditure of some money.  Because those tests need close monitoring.  And I am NOT about to let those switches 'do their thing' without monitoring.  I've seen that off set button default - at arbitrary moments in our experiments - that it can feed enough energy though the system to NUKE that circuit apparatus.  It's too risky to leave it unattended.

HOWEVER.  I will GLADLY do this test.  PROVIDED ONLY that this then carries the written endorsement of qualified academics that this will represent unequivocal proof of our argument.  Otherwise - where I may satisfy your own criteria - or those of you who depend on this argument - we'll still be left WITHOUT ACADEMIC ENDORSEMENT.  They can still come back and say - 'SO WHAT.  You've omitted a detailed account of the chemical interaction of the batteries that chemical interaction may, indeed, fully ACCOUNT FOR THAT ANOMALY'.

I'm not about to be bitten twice.  It's NOT an easy test to set up - believe it or not.  And it is NOT easy to monitor.  And it certainly is NOT an option unless there is a WIDE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS THEN UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF.  I'm not about to waste my time - yet again.  Get me a couple of academics who will go on record stating that this is ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR PROOF.  AND I'LL DO THAT TEST.  WITH PLEASURE.

But I absolutely agree with you Mags.  I KNOW that the test that you propose here is CONCLUSIVE.  It's getting our academics to acknowledge this that matters.  I would LOVE it if all our members here simply did these tests for themselves, looked at that oscillation - and puzzled out it's existence at all - in the light of a disconnected battery supply.  But I'm REALLY only interested in convincing our academics.  Because - in the final analysis - if they are NOT convinced by experimental evidence then this and any other over unity claims are dead at birth.  Still born.  Aborted. 

Kindest and best and thanks for reminding me about this argument.
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 13, 2012, 01:17:35 AM
Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the DEFINITIVE test I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 01:23:00 AM
Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the one I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99

it seems, Poynty Point that your talents at misinformation are bottomless.  And your grasp of history is more pragmatic than accurate.  I AM ON RECORD.  I HAVE NOT REFUSED IT.  I HAVE REPEATEDLY OFFERED IT ON OUR PREVIOUS LOCKED THREADS WITH PRECISELY THE SAME CONDITIONS AND FOR PRECISELY THE SAME REASONS. 

And I am not about to go into an explanation as to why that test you propose is RIDICULOUSLY INEFFECTIVE.  It speaks for itself.  Just another reckless attempt at misguiding all and sundry. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 01:28:55 AM
And, Poynty Point.  I put it to you that IF that is a definitive test - then there should be absolutely NO difficulties in finding the academics to endorse it.  I suspect that you'll have difficulties - notwithstanding.  And then you'll begin to appreciate why it is that I have difficulty in engaging ANY ACADEMICS AT ALL to go ON RECORD - about any part of these our claims.

Always and ever,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 01:49:19 AM
Here's a direct copy from a LOCKED THREAD.  I've highlighted the comment related to battery draw down tests. So don't give me that I've REFUSED to do that test.  It was discussed in depth.

Which makes this statement somewhat questionable - to put it politely.
Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the DEFINITIVE test I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99


And here's that first reference - chosen at random.
 solid state devices (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../solid-state-devices/) / Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292411/#msg292411) « on: June 24, 2011, 01:48:43 AM »   
My dear Cat.  I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work.  What happened?  Why are you back?  I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.

Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration.  We DO.  He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device.  We ARE.  He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look.  We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket.  Stefan declined our offer.  BUT.  Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device.  For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer.   That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting.  In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.

NOW.  Let's look at your second beef.  The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'.  REALLY?  The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting.  All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals.  And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on.  They see how I have been treated.  They know better. 

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

Now.  Back to your demands.  You want conclusive evidence.  It's already there.  But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death.  I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control.  But again.  I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.

And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE.  What if you're wrong?  What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG?  Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda?  What then?  I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.

Which means what?  It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here.  Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green?  So.  I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate.  And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate.  And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured.  I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief.  So.  I"m not writing for you.  I'm writing for the readers.

Regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Bubba1 on February 13, 2012, 02:56:32 AM
Wow!  More Rosemary math.  I thought we went through this before.  Your math skills stink.  It was wrong back in June, and it's still wrong.

MISTER Bubba
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 04:26:05 AM
Holy carp. I check in just for "grins" and I find this jewel of pseudomathematics from Rosemary.

Here's what happens when you drop out of high school and ignore mathematics.

Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
Notice that there's no TIME ELEMENT in that definition.
Quote
  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.

OK... so that took how many Joules of energy? 900 grams x 66 degrees x 4.18 Joules per gram per degree=  248292 Joules. This is how much energy was expended to heat the water. The TIME DOES NOT ENTER here.
Quote

We ran that test for 90 minutes.

OK... so you expended 248292 Joules PER 90 minutes. This is an energy divided by a TIME... .which gives a RATE of energy dissipation... aka POWER. Your average power was  (248292/(90x60)) = 45.98 Watts for the first 90 minutes.
Quote
Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.

NO---A JOULE IS ONE WATT_SECOND, NOT ONE WATT/SECOND. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR YOU KEEP MAKING. And how did you get water up to 104 degrees C? Did you use a pressurized container? The rise from 82 to 104 C  (22 degrees, not 20) will take another 4.18 x 900 x 22 = 82,764 Joules, and if you expended those in 10 minutes, your average power for that phase was (82,764/(10x60)) = 138 Watts. That is if you were able to keep the water from boiling. If the water boiled, that phase change into steam takes a lot more energy.... but still nothing like the numbers you come up with below. You've expended more like half a million Joules, not the 25 million you claim so foolishly right out in public with your laughable "math". It's no wonder your batteries might show the same voltage after as before--- you've barely tapped their total capacity.
Quote

So.  Do the math.

EVERYBODY READING HERE IS ROFLING RIGHT NOW>>>>>
Quote

4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. 
Preserved for posterity....
This is completely wrong. See my calculation of the first 90 minutes above. The phase change due to boiling will take a lot of energy but not nearly as much as your numbers here.
Quote
All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. 
If your calculations are as above, I have shown that they are incorrect.... therefore you are once again spewing your particular brand of ignorant and arrogant bullshit.
Quote
And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
There is no way to know that a battery is fully charged... unless you DISCHARGE IT AND MEASURE THE ENERGY. Then, of course, it won't be charged any more.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 13, 2012, 04:43:14 AM
And I am not about to go into an explanation as to why that test you propose is RIDICULOUSLY INEFFECTIVE.  It speaks for itself.  Just another reckless attempt at misguiding all and sundry. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Gyula,

Rosemary has conceded that you possesses expert knowledge in these matters. I'd very much like to hear your expert opinion on whether my test would be effective and definitive.

Regards,
.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 04:54:26 AM
Doesn't anyone else but me have a calculator and a freshman EE textbook?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 05:22:23 AM
 :-X
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on February 13, 2012, 05:49:11 AM
Ouch... Yeah, you have to count the time factor in there Rosemary.
You mentioned 72k volts or something like that number somewhere else in this thread and I thought that one sounded funny too. Discharged nearly instantaneously or unaccounted for or something... This thread is too long already to go digging for quotes. Sorry Rose, these guys have some seriously convincing arguments that you are WRONG about how you measure your circuit and your interpretation of the data. You just made simple math errors and touted them as empirical evidence. It becomes more difficult to take your mystery 'oscillations' seriously. I say they are feedback from looping Q1 and Q2 but I don't know CRAP compared to poynt99 and TK and Gyula. Hell, I didn't even understand half of what Gyula said the first time I read it!
ALL of them have more knowledge about electronics than you do Rose (and WAAAAY more than me). Maybe you're onto something, who knows? I say this again: I see a mobius loop in there. I think that is the key to finding the elusive OU, but again, who knows?
Boiling a couple cups of water doesn't take tens of millions of joules or six twelve volt batteries. Even I know that... 
Is this really how you have been making your POWER calculations?!? Holy crap...
(Looks around for flying towels...)

Regards,
Derrick
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 06:10:44 AM
That last bit of arrogant mathematical nonsense from Rosemary should be the definitive nail in the coffin of the Ainslie claims. It's all there for anyone to see.  What do you think, Stefan? What do you think, Professor Jones? You are dealing with someone who not only makes up her own definitions of terms, but who cannot compute and WILL NOT LEARN to compute fundamental circuit parameters correctly.  Why bother to design tests, when she doesn't even understand power and energy calculations, much less subtle factors like instrument ground loops and integration of spiky waveforms?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 13, 2012, 06:23:12 AM
And, Poynty Point.  I put it to you that IF that is a definitive test - then there should be absolutely NO difficulties in finding the academics to endorse it.  I suspect that you'll have difficulties - notwithstanding.  And then you'll begin to appreciate why it is that I have difficulty in engaging ANY ACADEMICS AT ALL to go ON RECORD - about any part of these our claims.

Always and ever,
Rosie Posie

TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: gravityblock on February 13, 2012, 06:25:43 AM
Rosemary,

You are truly your own worst enemy in all of this.  When this discussion comes to an end,  I'm sure most will agree it was a death by suicide.  Anyways, please take care and Good Luck (I'm being sincere when I say this).

Gravock
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 06:30:51 AM
Come out and fight, Rosemary. We are all waiting for you to justify your "calculations".

Where did you ever get "Joules = Watts per second"? I'd love to see your reference for that howler.  Maybe that's where the IEEE people decided to trash your submission.

And why don't you realize that your calculation implies that you are raising a DIFFERENT 900 grams of water EACH SECOND..... that is, your total energy calculation goes awry when you multiply the Energy required to raise the 900 grams to 82 C...... by the time it took.  This is absurd... but this is what your calculation says.

Then... you actually go even further and count the same inflated energy TWICE in your "addition". In the second ten minutes, you use "88" as the degrees of temperature rise to 104 C. But the water was ALREADY AT 82 degrees... you only raised it a further 22 (not 20 or 88) degrees, so this is the number you should have used. Then, of course you compound the error again by multiplying by the ten minutes.

We'll be charitable and let the "a further 20 degrees" (from 82 to 104) go as a typo.

Come on..... explain these calculations to us.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 07:52:11 AM
Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

And here we have a sample of Poynty's real genius which is to POYNT at anything and everything that is ENTIRELY irrelevant.  As ever he uses those tangenital markers... or is that tangential?  Can never remember.  Either way - those 'poynters' of his are rather too nominal.  They are, to sign posts, what the little finger is to the hand.  Which is both small and dispensable and partially crooked.  I won't include Bubba's comments - because that would really confuse us all.  I get it though that she's trying to pass herself off as a 'man'.  Whatever next?  A man would never be that obsessed.  Unless, like Poynty and some others who post here - they're in drag.  Therefore?  I rest my case.   :-* I'm not sure who else commented.  Mainly because I really don't care enough.  But girls.  Thank you.  I've had my first real laugh both at my own adventurous reach into elementary mathematics and your own transparent need to refer to this and nothing else.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If I didn't know better - I'd be inclined to think that you didn't like me any more than you like our technology.  Fortunately I know this isn't the case.

Anyway lest I entirely lose my 'poynty point' - for sheer want of size and structure - then let me re-iterate.  Or rather. Let Poynty 're-iterate'.  It's a refreshing example of his 'courtesy' which is also lacking in 'parts'.
TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!
And here's my answer.  AGAIN.

My dear Poynty Point,

.   If you're referring to the battery draw down test - then may I refer you to my 'conditions'.
.   If you're referring to a demonstration of the tests included in our paper - GLADLY.  Just nominate the venue.
.   If you're referring to that absurd test related to 'lights' and what have you - then 'NO'.

But only because a far more significant variation has been done.  And it resulted in the a single row of LED's STAYING LIT.  And draw your own conclusions from this.  They none of them will conform to standard prediction.

Kindest regards, Poynty Point
From your very own
Rosy Posy
AKA (also known as) Rosie Pose.
 :-* 8) :o

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 08:10:44 AM
Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

That's all you have to say about it? Come on, Rosemary.

Is your math CORRECT, or is it WRONG? Can you find ANYONE who agrees with your calculations? Is your main conclusion based on your math, or not? As I have shown, when the math is done correctly, you actually used about one twentieth the battery capacity during your test, an insignificant amount that would not result in a no-load voltage drop in a good lead-acid battery. Your conclusions are based on incorrect math..... AND SO YOU MUST RETRACT THEM, or show how I am wrong. No tests are even necessary until you resolve this issue about your math.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 08:17:44 AM
I've just seen Gravock's and Derrick's posts.  Those MATTER.  Guys.  Apologies.  Let me ASSURE YOU that I am very well aware of the fact that that analysis was skewed.  Had I taken the trouble to read the entire post I would have deleted that part.  I ONLY referenced the entire post because I saw manifold reference to history repeating itself - as well as an EXAMPLE to show how thoroughly this battery draw down test had been referenced.  Poynty CLAIMED that it was the for the first time that I'd offered this.  Here was the PROOF that it was not.

In any event.  You are right to doubt my lack of expertise.  I don't think I've EVER tried to pass myself off as anything more than an amateur.  And as such I am certainly well qualified.  I'm an amateur in the true sense of the term as I LOVE PHYSICS.  In fact, I distinctly recall advising Derrick of this in some considerable detail.  My knowledge - if I have any - relates to some insights that are related to Dark Energy.  That is my only interest.  And these experiments are only related to the proof of this field model.  I have not got the required skills to develop this as required.  Which is PRECISELY why I am open sourcing it - in the first instance.

Kindest regards,
Rosie.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 08:50:19 AM
And Derrick, may I remind you of my private message when you suggested that my knowledge of electronics could be greater than the 'others'.

Derrick, I've just seen this.  You really need to believe everyone who claims this.  I'm a CLUTZ on electronics.  I ONLY know fundamental physics.  We're all arguing this from different levels of expertise.  And all I'm doing, within the ambit of my rather limited knowledge - is showing what our electronic experts have missed - for a really long time.  Which means only this.  I'm reasonably logical.  But you'll find, on the whole, that logic is usually the best argument.

Regarding your questions, I am not sure that I can answer this with the required competence.  Let me know, and if you really want an answer I'll get one of our collaborators to do this.  I may be able to get my head around them - but the truth is that I'm fighting a war here - and it's taking up my time.  I'm not even answering my emails.  And I've got a flood of them to get around to.

Take care, and hang in here.  Maybe we'll get some answers - eventually.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 09:24:31 AM
SO.  TO ANSWER THIS IN DETAIL
A simpler, easier, and quicker definitive method to determine if the circuit is indeed using energy from the batteries or not, is to implement the test per the following diagram. The RATS have NOT done this test on the apparatus for which the claims are based, and anything less than this does not qualify as proof.
We most certainly HAVE done this test.  Or a more definitive variation thereof that is much more to the poynt.

Now, we all know that Rosemary is going to say she has already done this test, but there has been no proof offered to convincingly demonstrate that this test was performed on the same apparatus referred to in the papers, and in the video. When and until such evidence is provided, it will be assumed that this test has NOT been performed as described.
It was NOT done on the experimental apparatus nor is it required.  It's the principle that needs to be addressed.

The test is extremely simple to set up. Once done, it's only a matter of observing which, if either of the bulbs, illuminate. It's that simple. After ensuring that both bulbs function normally, install them for the test.
There is nothing to stop you doing your own tests.

And of these two options...
If only the "Current Supplied" bulb illuminates, then the circuit uses battery energy and it is over all "underunity".

If only the "Current Returned" bulb illuminates, then the circuit returns more energy to the battery than it uses, and it is over all "overunity".
then guess what?  The 'current returning rail' stays permanently LIT notwithstanding the use of LED's - which we all know are 'polarised' In which case?  There's NO FURTHER PROOF REQUIRED TO SUPPORT OUR CLAIM.  How nice is that?

If you're SERIOUSLY proposing that this as a DEFINITIVE TEST then our demonstration is also very quickly managed.  So. If this is now a considered option for your PRIZE Poynt.99 - ever recurring - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  We can set up that test in no time at all.  In fact.   Just do your own.  Either way it's going to cost you your prize money.  And for that matter Professor Steven E Jones' rather pretty coins.

Again,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 09:35:50 AM
That's all you have to say about it? Come on, Rosemary.

Is your math CORRECT, or is it WRONG? Can you find ANYONE who agrees with your calculations? Is your main conclusion based on your math, or not? As I have shown, when the math is done correctly, you actually used about one twentieth the battery capacity during your test, an insignificant amount that would not result in a no-load voltage drop in a good lead-acid battery. Your conclusions are based on incorrect math..... AND SO YOU MUST RETRACT THEM, or show how I am wrong. No tests are even necessary until you resolve this issue about your math.

Deal with it Rosemary. Your claims are based on your math errors and your willful misdefinition of terms like the Joule. YOUR ERRORS INVALIDATE YOUR CLAIMS and no testing is required nor should be performed until you GET YOUR MATH STRAIGHTENED OUT and acknowledge the consequences.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 13, 2012, 02:15:14 PM
If you're SERIOUSLY proposing that this as a DEFINITIVE TEST then our demonstration is also very quickly managed.  So. If this is now a considered option for your PRIZE Poynt.99 - ever recurring - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  We can set up that test in no time at all.  In fact.   Just do your own.  Either way it's going to cost you your prize money.  And for that matter Professor Steven E Jones' rather pretty coins.

Then please DO indulge us. I am QUITE CERTAIN all 3 readers here would very much like to see this clearly demonstrated in a video. Only caveat is, it MUST be performed on the actual apparatus referenced in the paper and used in the video. Otherwise, it's simply not valid.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on February 13, 2012, 03:49:20 PM
I've just seen Gravock's and Derrick's posts.  Those MATTER.  Guys.  Apologies.  Let me ASSURE YOU that I am very well aware of the fact that that analysis was skewed.  Had I taken the trouble to read the entire post I would have deleted that part.  I ONLY referenced the entire post because I saw manifold reference to history repeating itself - as well as an EXAMPLE to show how thoroughly this battery draw down test had been referenced.  Poynty CLAIMED that it was the for the first time that I'd offered this.  Here was the PROOF that it was not.

In any event.  You are right to doubt my lack of expertise.  I don't think I've EVER tried to pass myself off as anything more than an amateur.  And as such I am certainly well qualified.  I'm an amateur in the true sense of the term as I LOVE PHYSICS.  In fact, I distinctly recall advising Derrick of this in some considerable detail.  My knowledge - if I have any - relates to some insights that are related to Dark Energy.  That is my only interest.  And these experiments are only related to the proof of this field model.  I have not got the required skills to develop this as required.  Which is PRECISELY why I am open sourcing it - in the first instance.

Kindest regards,
Rosie.

@ Rosemary,
Thanks for saying my posts matter! I believe that these other posts here matter just as much (except Replaced LMAO!!), some a lot more. Have you seen the videos mentioned? DID you read the PDF about the scope?
You're right, I did send you a PM asking if you could help me design a simple (well...) circuit or for your input on it. Why? Well you look at things differently than someone with a lifetime working in electronics. Bad choice on my part since by your own admission you are a 'klutz' in electronics, an admitted 'amateur', yet you argue like you are the only one (on this forum anyways) who can understand your circuit... It seems there are a couple individuals here (to me at least!!) who understand the principles of your 'circuit' better than you do.
Why are you trying to argue these things when you're obviously, (admittedly!) out of your depth? Simple calculation errors and suddenly there are millions of joules floating around that are 'Dark Energy'?? A negative reading on a scope and it becomes 'Dark Energy'? Better start pumping that stuff out of the hold, your circuit is starting to sink... Sorry (mostly). Sarcasm comes easily when I'm low on caffeine...
Your reluctance to explore other reasons for your 'oscillations' still leaves me scratching my head...
There are some serious questions to answer up there before these people are going to continue to try and help you 'prove' your theory Rosemary. Good luck to you on that!

I guess in South America 'personal message' means 'copy/paste'?
Nice.
I'm looking forward to the NEW math BTW...

Regards,

Derrick
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 05:21:52 PM
Hello again, Derrick,

You seem upset that I published MY message?  Had I published yours then it would have made sense.  Anyway,..
... I believe that these other posts here matter just as much (except Replaced LMAO!!), some a lot more. Have you seen the videos mentioned? DID you read the PDF about the scope?
No.  Can't recall any references other than by TK.  And I don't even read his posts any more.  All others I read avidly.

yet you argue like you are the only one (on this forum anyways) who can understand your circuit... It seems there are a couple individuals here (to me at least!!) who understand the principles of your 'circuit' better than you do.
It is my humble opinion, that the ONLY people who still regularly contribute here and who also understand that circuit - are Gravock,  Gyula and AbbaRue.  And, with the exception of AbbaRue - and notwithstanding - they also missed the significance of that 'source leg of Q2' being a required path for the flow of current.  If you're relying on the advices of our dear Poynty Point and MilesEverSo, then you'll forever be at the wrong party.  Their commitment to DISCOUNTING our evidence based on no reason at all - other than denial.  And right now it's because my math 'errored'.  Nothing new.  I can barely manage to add up my own age.  Which is precisely why I leave these details to my collaborators when we write those papers.  BUT having said that, you must appreciate that it is nowhere near as 'faulted' as Poynty's math when it comes to counting the hit rate of this thread.  Nor is it as critical as Poynty's reliance on the battery discharging a negative current flow. And for the life of I see no objections from any of his 'friends' on these issues.  If I must commit 'ritual suicide' by virtue of what's tantamount to a poor mathematics then I'm in good company with some highly respected physicists who also never mastered the art.  Including I might add, both Einstein and Faraday.  And then too, by now - our Poynty Point would have  had to set us all an example.  He's butchered the fundamentals of physics. I've only erred in the application of a sum.  Why has he not committed Hara-kiri?

Why are you trying to argue these things when you're obviously, (admittedly!) out of your depth? Simple calculation errors and suddenly there are millions of joules floating around that are 'Dark Energy'?? A negative reading on a scope and it becomes 'Dark Energy'? Better start pumping that stuff out of the hold, your circuit is starting to sink... Sorry (mostly). Sarcasm comes easily when I'm low on caffeine. Your reluctance to explore other reasons for your 'oscillations' still leaves me scratching my head...
Again.  There have been no reasons 'explored' - not on this thread.  They've only been denied.  And as I've mentioned.  DENIAL is not an argument.

I'm looking forward to the NEW math BTW...
Me too.  Hopefully there is someone out there who can make sense of that negative wattage.  And lest you think this is also 'bad math' then rest happy.  This is the math that not only I have found, but so have our collaborators, those many witnesses to these results -  AND MUCH MORE TO THE POYNT - they've also been validated by our beautiful little LeCroy.  It manages those sums with remarkable aplomb.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 05:44:32 PM
Then please DO indulge us. I am QUITE CERTAIN all 3 readers here would very much like to see this clearly demonstrated in a video. Only caveat is, it MUST be performed on the actual apparatus referenced in the paper and used in the video. Otherwise, it's simply not valid.

 Dear Poynty Point,
 I most certainly will NOT present this in video form - until I can be satisfied that a mere video has ever answered anyone's concerns related to over unity anywhere on these forums - or even anywhere on the INTERNET.  HOWEVER.  IF a video will satisfy you that we qualify for your PRIZE - then I'll undertake to do this WITH PLEASURE.  But I am NOT about to apply that to our circuit.  The positioning of another load in series with a diode - will most certainly block that oscillation - which is what you're relying on.  But it can be managed on a simple 12 volt battery supply with diodes in place of the load.  All else being equal.  Therefore the principle stands.  And you would most certainly NOT be able to explain the one rail that is continually alight.  Certainly not within the context of standard predictions.
 
 As ever,
 Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 13, 2012, 06:07:58 PM
Well, there you have it. Rosemary defends her math as being verified by her collaborators and her oscilloscope. Yet we haven't seen a single person posting a defense or explanation of her calculations.

Her claims of excess energy and battery recharging are based on calculations like those she's posted above which I have analyzed, which she defends as correct, even when her errors are pointed out. Her claims ARE THEREFORE INVALID.

I tell you all this: until Rosemary can show that she understands HOW and WHY her calculations above are incorrect, and she acknowledges her error and retracts her claim that her data show excess energy, you will never be able to test her circuit--- because she'll say that your test data support her, since she can calculate differently than you will do, and since she doesn't understand how she is wrong.

ROSEMARY's ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON WRONG MATH. THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT FOR HER CLAIMS because her MATH IS WRONG.

ROSEMARY.... where is Doctor Stephen Jones? Where are your other "collaborators" to defend your calculations?


WHAT MAKES YOU THINK 1 JOULE = 1 WATT PER SECOND ???


Come on, let's say it together: A Watt is a RATE of one Joule PER Second. A Joule is a quantity, a Watt is a rate at which that quantity is dissipated or "used" for work.

Say it, Rosemary: "The calculations posted are wrong, I understand why, and here's the correction, and I admit that this is MUCH less than the battery's original capacity, so much less in fact that 10 or more identical tests could be performed without substantially drawing down the batteries." 

You must ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG about this point, otherwise we will not be able to make any progress.  It's undeniable that your calculations are wrong: we have them above in your own post, at least until you delete them.

Quote
I can barely manage to add up my own age.

And yet you are making a claim that depends on your "addition" of quantities you don't understand and which are applied incorrectly.... and you have tried to build an entire set of claims thereon. And when those who CAN add up "your age" point out your errors, you willfully ignore them and proceed merrily down your path full of error. You are pathetic.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 07:02:20 PM
Guys,

If history is anything to go by - then we're seeing the 'flaming' of this thread which is it's inevitable consequence.  A few more days and this thread will likely be locked.  It has happened so many times in the past that I've lost count.  Certainly not less than 6 times.  The point is this. 

We have undeniable evidence that we can do without the battery supply and simply access it's potential difference - to enhance efficiencies to a value that far exceeds Kirchhoff's unity requirements.  Now.  One of the distinct advantages of a forum over a blog - is that, provided it is reasonably representative of a wide and critical audience - then there will be ample scope to develop the arguments and the evidence - to come to some conclusions related to that evidence.  This is entirely WHOLESOME.  And much to be desired.  However, when it comes to clear evidence of over unity - then because of the preposterous nature of the claim - it generates extreme polarisation of that opinion - and the arguments thereby become somewhat fraught.

One aspect of all such forum 'discussions' which is a euphemism as it's applied in the context of Poynty's input - is that sooner or later the 'agenda' or the 'bias' of the posters is easily shown and reasonably easily assessed.  My objective here was and is DECIDEDLY confrontational and deliberately aimed at aggravating the extreme polarisation related to these claims.  We claim an 'over unity' to the extent that we have - undeniably INFINITE COP.  But the truth of the matter is this.  Even I know that this number is not correct.  We are applying measurements that are based on a one sided argument.  We are ONLY looking at the energy that is supplied by the battery supply source.  IF we were to factor in the concept that back, or counter electromotive force actually is RE-GENERATIVE - then what we actually need to factor in is the other side of that argument.  We need to establish the principle that the circuit components themselves - are capable of generating energy.  Which is absolutely in line with standard Inductive Laws.  Not only this - but it appears that our simulation software also accepts this principle.  Because also, we have substantial evidence of this in simulated programs.  And, unarguably, Poynty's own simulations show that same negative wattage.  And negative wattage - if it means anything at all - is ONLY possible if there is, indeed, an alternate energy supply.

Now.  The relevance to all this, and why I'm anxious to get this to the academic forum - as opposed to this or any other forum dedicated to over unity research - is precisely because what goes on here DOES NOT REALLY COUNT.  It counts - as far as it may or may not persuade our readers that over unity is possible.  But it does not PROMOTE over unity.  For that one needs our academics. And until this is put to that elusive table that sits so high inside those ivory towers - then there is absolutely not value in any new findings at all.  And here we have a problem.  IF an academic were to be so reckless as to come forward with open support - then his reputation will be blasted - amongst his peers.  And that's his livelihood.  They may not consider any proposals until such proposals have been published in a reviewed journal.  Which is where we're at.  We're waiting for that publication. 

Meanwhile - I took this departure - simply because there is an element in these forums that is intentionally aimed at DISCOUNTING any over unity evidence.  All is tolerated - provided only that the proof is slight - or disputable - or eccentrically rather than reasonably argued.  And there is unarguably an agenda associated with this.  And proof of this agenda is the extent to which the contenders 'talk' to each other off forum and at length.  They strategise their counter attack - and they work in 'packs'.  They post TIRELESSLY.  And when they find proof - then they deny this on grounds of being 'too small' to exceed error margins - or they simply drown out the evidence in utterly unscientific analysis CONFUSED in inappropriate and undefined ACRONYMS - with ambivalent answers - at best.  And the sad truth is that many of our forum members DEFER to that analysis - assuming that it's both 'academic' and 'official'.  Trust me on this.  If science is not clear - then it is not even science. 

I'm ending this post here because I personally find it uncomfortable to have to scroll past a page.  And I've reached that limit.  I'll continue this argument on another post.

R


   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 07:27:31 PM
continued/...
It is my contention that proof of over unity ABOUNDS in these forums.  Evidence is everywhere.  But those that present it do so in the rather reckless hope that it will be accepted.  It won't be.  NOT EVER.  That's the beauty of those 'trolls'.  Their mandate is to deny ALL.  They may pretend to an early acceptance.  They may even pretend to reasonably evaluate the evidence.  But they will NEVER accept it.  Else they'd lose their jobs.

Back to our own claim.  Here they have greater difficulty because the proof of it no longer depends on their own sums.  Our own analyses have been based on the protocols that were FIRST defined by our academics themselves.  Now.  I've been at this for many years.  And since the news of this has reached the forums - now into it's 3rd year - we've delivered proof of energy that exceeds COP>17.  But interestingly - since all else will likely FAIL - then their stategised approach is this.  'Discount anything that Rosemary advances - based on her stupidity - want of schooling - age - mendacity - looks - dress sense - anything that springs to mind.  AND DON'T HOLD BACK.'  Which is what you're witnessing.  And there is no defense against that attack.  For reasons best understood by our 'trolls' - there is no reason to justify their own errors of assumption related to these tests.  It is only important to FIND SOMETHING - ANYTHING AT ALL - and make that the theme of DISMISSAL.  That way they can reject the paper that explains the claim - without EVER LOOKING AT THE EXTENT OF THAT CLAIM.

And here's what that claim actually points to.  Which is what needs to be salvaged - not here - but by our academics.  And I am well aware of the fact that there are more than a few such who read this thread.  It has the evidence - as do all over unity claims - that there is a hidden force that has NOT been accommodated in our paradigms related to the transfer of energy.  And our proposal - which is NOT a first - is that this is in the material of coalesced matter.  IF this is true - then our string theorists are ON THE MONEY.  Because that also means that we have a complete unifying principle that will resolve the decades of dichotomies between our quantum and classical thinkers.  AND more to the point.  We will then be able to access an energy supply that will more than satisfy our rampant requirements.  Without the risk of polluting our poor planet.  And why this needs to be discounted - on any grounds at all - is precisely because such knowledge will challenge the stranglehold on our energy that is enjoyed by our monopolists. 

Fortunately our evidence is not that critical.  Not now that Rossi's technology is being developed and soon to come on stream.  But the principles that are exposed by Rossi - are PRECISELY the principles that we're trying our best to advance.  And this will, eventually, be required.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 13, 2012, 07:37:24 PM
I need to wrap this up.

So.  Again.  Back to the theme of this thread.  All we've tried to do is to alert you all - through careful argument - of the utterly spurious bases of rejection that Poynty et al attempt.  His objections thus far have been absurdly wanting in scientific justification.  And his dismissal of our claim has been presented with such a dire want of good manners and sincere interest that it self-evidently is designed to REJECT or SUPPRESS everything or anything at all.  I can't argue for the others.  I am not familiar with their tests nor their claims.  But I do know my own.  And the ONLY justification for engaging Poynty et al - in this debacle - is that he has offered a PRIZE for finding over unity.  Therefore he is contractually bound to argue our claim. And thus far he has presented absolutely NO argument to refute it.  Not only that but he's attitude has been one of such appalling rudeness that - at it's least - one must assume that he's somewhat 'combative'. 

If there were any sincere attempt at finding proof of over unity - then my schooling or lack thereof would not be considered.  My age, my intellect, my dress sense, NOTHING would matter - more than a sincere and willing evaluation of the tests presented.  Else we can SAFELY conclude - that there is a motive in DISMISSAL - that is in line with a hidden agenda.  And I only KNEW that should I present that challenge that he, and his 'friends' would need to resort to that rather inappropriate attack.  I relied on it.  I needed that evidence to prove my point.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on February 13, 2012, 07:40:24 PM
Hi Rosemary and all,
I am now closing this thread as it does not make sense to discuss a circuit,
where there are known measurement problems and the function generator and
ground problems are still there.

So please Rosemary, if you want to go further with your circuit,
and really convince the Pros
please do some more experiments WITHOUT the function and just use your 555 timer you already have
and use some parallel and serial connected SMD  resistors as
your shunt and also use a battery capacitance meter
as shown here in this new Bedini movie at around 34:20 minute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1G15sEW3NQ
so you can tell us the battery capacitance before and after the tests.


Otherwise it makes no sense to discuss your old circuit cause it is based
on too many measurement problems.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on February 27, 2012, 10:24:43 PM
This was my Reply to Rosemary about her last private email to me.
I am unlocking now this thread again.

====================================


Hi Rosemary,
sorry, I was busy with other things...

So can´t you just make new tests which I proposed ?

Why is it so hard for you to use a capacitor in parallel with the batteries,
so you have a stable Battery voltage
which would be much better for measurement of the input power

and use these total maybe 3 US$ SMD shunts
to have noninductive shunts and use a battery capacitance meter
to show the charge level of the batteries before and after the tests ?

If you can do these tests and document it in a new video your trust level would rise
much more from all readers of the forum...

ALso finally get rid of the function generator and use a 9 Volts battery to apply
the negative threshold voltage level for the oscillation to occur.

Until then I will consider your device a measurement error as I and others have shown you
many times..

I will post this onto the forum also.

I will also unlock your thread again and you can post again, but probably notbody will further listen,
until you will do these measurement improvements to nail down the effects...

You said yourself 3 or 4 Weeks ago, I should lock the thread after you had posted the 2 PDF files.
I thought you already DID POST these files....


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 01:02:45 AM
Well.  Who would have thought?  :o It seems that I have my own thread back.  If I didn't know better I'd conclude that Harti became increasingly aware of a certain injustice in locking my thread in the first instance. 

Now.  Harti.  Lest we EVER again move away from the 'same page' so to speak - let me make this clear.  My continuing to post on your forum is done on the UNDERSTANDING that you will NOT AGAIN lock my thread without my EXPRESS REQUEST to do so.  Unless obviously, that is, that I actually EVER breach forum guidelines by the gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of your members.  Otherwise, presumably, I am entitled to a certain 'freedom' of expression that is enjoyed by the MEN on your forum.  One hopes, in these enlightened times, that your resistance to my own license to 'speak my mind' is not based on a general 'dislike' of a mere 'female' attempting to engage in 'matters scientific'?  If not for this - then I'm flummoxed.  Because the only other explanation is that you DISLIKE our technology.  And that is hardly an impartial attitude - which is what we all rely on when we engage here.

In any event.  I am that grateful for this extraordinary concession - that I'll withhold a detailed analysis of your motives.  And press on.  Notwithstanding your assurance that there is absolutely NO INTEREST in this thread or even in our claim.  I'll just 'rabbit on' on my own if there's a want of members who wish to engage.  I'm well used to my 'monologues'.  As - it seems - are your readers.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 01:50:18 AM
Hello Harti,

Since you've made this email public - then let me answer it publicly.

So can´t you just make new tests which I proposed ?
Which new tests?  If you're referring to the use of a 555 switch in place of the function generator - then we've done that test.  If you're referring to the use of a single MOSFET with the continual application of a negative signal - then we've done that test.  Both show a continual oscillation.  And both show an evident infinite co-efficient of performance.  I've mentioned this REPEATEDLY.  Is there something that I'm writing that you can't understand?  If so - then let me know.  God knows how, but I'll then see if I can make this clearer.  Failing which, may I impose on you to stop asking me this?   

Why is it so hard for you to use a capacitor in parallel with the batteries, so you have a stable Battery voltage which would be much better for measurement of the input power
This question is answered in our paper - and at length.  The short answer is because it kills the oscillation.  And the long answer is why it kills it.   I'll look for that extract when I've finished here and just edit it in. Here's that extract.

 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: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 01:53:02 AM
continued/..
and use these total maybe 3 US$ SMD shunts to have noninductive shunts and use a battery capacitance meter to show the charge level of the batteries before and after the tests ?
I've also answered this question at length.  Again PLEASE attend to the answer and again - come back to me if you don't understand it.  The use of non-inductive shunts is preferred.  However, they are NOT required.  They are only EVER required if we were dealing with LOW WATTAGES.  We are not.  There is nothing ambiguous about our results.  Therefore we can factor in margins for error that are WELL in excess of what's required - that STILL leave us with values that defy standard prediction.

If you can do these tests and document it in a new video your trust level would rise much more from all readers of the forum...
I trust by having attended to these questions there's some modicum of 'improved' trust.  What you're actually asking is that I show proof of having done these tests.  I'm afraid we did not video tape it.  And nor will I.  It is my experience that videos do NOTHING other than advance suspicions rather than otherwise.  However, having said that - IF you and Poynty and Professor Steven E Jones would consider a video of these and ALL our tests as SUFFICIENT PROOF to our claim that we then get awarded your prizes - then INDEED - I'd be glad to revisit this and tape everything for as long as is required.

ALso finally get rid of the function generator and use a 9 Volts battery to apply the negative threshold voltage level for the oscillation to occur.
Yet again.  WE HAVE DONE THIS.  WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT YOU EXPRESSLY REQUIRE.

Until then I will consider your device a measurement error as I and others have shown you many times.
In the light of the fact that we have done these tests - then may I advise you that you should therefore reconsider that we have ANY ERROR MEASUREMENTS AT ALL.  And while you and others may have 'referred' to measurement errors there is not a one of you that have 'SHOWN' me measurement errors as you state here.

I will also unlock your thread again and you can post again, but probably nobody will further listen, until you will do these measurement improvements to nail down the effects.
AGAIN.  Since I have done those tests?  Then?  Do you therefore guarantee me that all my detractors will now LISTEN to me - as you put it?  I doubt that Harti.  That is something that will NEVER happen.  Certainly not by Poynty Point and his disciples.

You said yourself 3 or 4 Weeks ago, I should lock the thread after you had posted the 2 PDF files.
I did - INDEED - require my thread to be locked. But NOT until I'd concluded the thread with a clear refutation of Poynty's argument.  As it is - I've been in receipt of correspondence from someone who is under the delusion that I have NOT sufficiently argued the 'lack of a path' for that full oscillation.  I see this as IMPERATIVE.  Else all will be left with the assumption that Poynty and Professor and even YOU would be justified in ignoring our claim for your prizes.

 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary

edited in that glow number for emphasis.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 04:38:20 AM
Well guys

I need to get back to my argument - or rather I need to refute Poynty Point's argument.  LOL.  When one applies the term 'argument' to anything at all the Poynty presents - it's really just a rather reckless euphemism for a drunken preamble amongst the myriad opportunities presented by science to 'befuddle' the unwary.  Misguide the many.  I've always been of the opinion that Poynty's inclined to substitute huge dollops of testosterone to compensate for an apparent lack in his logical faculties.  Which is very effective.  Glandular excretions are known to replace cool reason with hot passion.  And on the whole it's considerably more engaging.  Even if it then results in an evident lack of a preferred clarity of thought.  However.  That being said, it's still 'just' my opinion.  And it is in no way intended to detract from his general abilities.  It ONLY detracts from his pretensions as a theoretical physicist.  Personally I strongly approve of passion.

You may recall.  My poor little thread was locked - for a while.  Not entirely sure of the reasons for this.  But as a result there's the outside chance that there are those readers here who may have forgotten the thrust of this 'complaint' of his.  Here again, is the argument that he DEPENDS on to REFUTE our claim for his, and for Professor Steven E Jones' - and for that matter, Harti's prize for evidence of over unity.   Golly.   :o That's a clean sweep of our forum owners and their more prestigious members.  One hopes that I've not bitten off more than I can chew - as the saying goes.  It makes me positively NERVOUS to engage.  But my comfort - as ever - is in a personal reliance on the dependability of our Science Greats and the most of our Standard Model.  It's served us all so well and for so long.  And that way I can relate to known physics to support our CLAIM, where Poynty, bless him, relies on an entire departure from known physics to lend any kind of support at all - to his COUNTERCLAIM.

His early proposal was that there is no significance to the oscillation that is generated on our circuit.  I claim that this is indeed significant.  This because we can generate that oscillation, which is robust and self-sustaining.  And it seems to be responsible for the dissipation of some significant and exploitable heat at the circuit's workstation.  Not only is there all this benefit - but it all 'happens' while the battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit that it cannot discharge any energy at all.  Now.  Here's the counter argument.  He states that there is a continued connection through the gate leg of the MOSFET.  To put this argument to bed I'm showing hereunder a DIAGRAMMATIC representation of the Q-array.  I'm afraid I needed to take license with the conventional depiction of a MOSFET.  This I think was required to highlight the fact that the source leg of Q2 is NOT connected to anything other than the Gate of Q1.  And if you recall the setup.  We've got a negative signal applied to the gate of Q1.  In any event.  Let me see if I can manage that download - and then I'll continue with this 'monologue' of mine.  LOL.

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 04:47:09 AM
Ok.  I can see that I've downloaded something.  Just can't make head or tail of what it's meant to show.  I'll leave it there pro temp and then get another design uploaded that I can at least see.  Then I'll continue with this argument. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 09:24:56 AM
Sorry Guys - I'm trying this again.  Hopefully I'll be able to read it.

Regards as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 09:33:49 AM
Still NOT the clearest thing that I've managed.  In any event here's the discussion on the required paths.  The left transistor is Q2 - the right Q1 - as per our standard schematic.  The diagram is a non-standard depiction of the actual attachment of the each of those transistor legs.  Q2 Drain to Q1 Drain.  Q2 source to Q1 gate.  Q2 Gate to Q1 source.

Therefore.  When a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1 - then the positive is correspondingly applied to gate of Q2.  Q1 cannot conduct current from the battery supply.  Nor can Q2 BECAUSE.  The current from the battery would need to cross from the Gate at Q2 directly to the source of Q1 thereby bypassing it's own Q2 Source leg.  OR.  The  it would need to pass from Q2's source leg directly to the gate of Q1 where there is an APPLIED NEGATIVE SIGNAL that would resist this current flow. 

Therefore, there is no path to enable the discharge of current from the battery supply during the period that a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1.

I hope that's clearer now. 
Regards,
Rosemary

added the word 'not'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 28, 2012, 02:37:26 PM
Dear 3 readers of this thread,

Since there is no way to add a poll to an existing thread that I did not start, I must impose this poll-type question here:

Should poynt99:

a) engage in further debate as Rosemary has requested?
or
b) leave Rosemary to indulge in her endless monolog?

Note: a lack of response to this poll question will be taken as a "b)"

Thank you.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 02:38:28 PM
Anyway Guys,

IF these points are STILL refuted by Poynty Point et al - then they will need to justify their 'quarrel' by variously PROVING

.  that this transistor can conduct current from a supply source without accessing it's own Source Legs
.  that the current from the battery supply can flow through Q1's Gate leg notwithstanding an applied negative signal at that gate
.  that the resulting waveforms across the switch would show PROOF of a voltage commensurate with that 'alleged' current flow

In the absence of which PROOF - then I take it that this has now been 'put to bed'. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
All 3 readers of this thread,

Since there is no way to add a poll to an existing thread that I did not start, I must impose this poll-type question here:

Should poynt99:

a) engage in further debate as Rosemary has requested?
or
b) leave Rosemary to indulge in her endless monolog?

Note: a lack of response to this poll question will be taken as a "b)"

Thank you.

.99

Hello Poynty Point,

As ever it's a comfort to see that you, at least, are one of the three readers here.  And since I'm another - then between us we make up a two third majority.  So.  If my math is even marginally better than yours - which while somewhat 'improbable' still seems to be very much on the cards - then I think we could settle your 'poll' between ourselves.

If I had my 'druthers' I'd recommend you let me 'rabbit on'.  That way, God willing, I'll conclude my strong arguments against your weak counterclaims - without too many distractions.  And then too - who knows - I may conclude this thread this side of December 21 2012.  Failing which, there's the strong possibility that we'll go around and around - in ever smaller and more irrelevant circles.

However.  Your input is MUCH REQUIRED ONLY for your 'green light' on our battery draw down tests.  That will put all arguments to bed.  But here you need to rally a couple of academics.  I've not heard from Professor Steven E Jones.  He seems to be ignoring this challenge of ours with the same level of commitment as do you.  Are you in correspondence with him?  On this?  Do let us know.  I get the distinct impression that you're as 'thick a thieves' as the saying goes.  And I think he could certainly prise a couple of those learned and revered away from the ivory towers - to evaluate these test criteria.

But on the whole, - if you do exercise your rights to freedom of expression and put in the occasional 'objection' as is your 'wont' then I, for one, can do nothing about it.  I'm not allowed to 'monitor' my thread - for some reason.  I think Harti would be sorry to give me that advantage.  Which means that you may indulge your crass bad manners to your heart's content.  I know how you rely on all that freedom of expression.  Even if it's only your testosterone that speaks so articulately - yet with so little reason.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on February 28, 2012, 03:40:02 PM
That's a good "safe play" on your part, wise move.

I doubt there will be any responses other than your own, so it is settled then. Great!

Have fun talking to yourself.  :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 28, 2012, 03:52:13 PM
That's a good "safe play" on your part, wise move.

I doubt there will be any responses other than your own, so it is settled then. Great!

Have fun talking to yourself.  :o

Ta muchly - Poynty Point.  It's not that I don't welcome your input.  God knows.  It's always 'grist the mill' as it's said.  And please see if you solicit Professor Steven E Jones to evaluate our battery draw down test.  FOR THE RECORD.  We are willing and able.  And - frankly - I'd be DELIGHTED to do that DEFINITIVE TEST.  I'd see to it that it was continuously on video that everyone could engage - and I strongly suspect that it may go some way to advancing this over unity study of ours.  Wouldn't you say?  One way or another it will establish these outlandish claims.  And I'm sure we'd ALL like to think that you're seriously researching this possibility.  Because right now - I'm inclined to think that the most of us are inclined to believe that you DON'T support it.  Or maybe you're just NOT willing to cough up that prize money.   :o :'(

BY THE WAY (btw) PLEASE.  If there is anything that I write that you can actually 'refute' then FEEL FREE.  Do your thing.  INDULGE.  I'd hate to think that you're holding back any kind of argument that actually can be brought to bear on this subject.  LOL.  That would NOT be in the interests of good science.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 29, 2012, 03:18:35 AM
Just a small diversion here guys.

I'm concerned that IF these comments are left 'unanswered' then there's an outside chance that my dedicated 'hate blog' may be taken seriously.  God forbid.  Here's what Poynty posted there today.

Quote from: Ponyty the ever poyntless on my Hate Blog
Shes asked me to engage in a debate to refute her claims, then when I post a poll asking her audience of 3 what I should do, she backsteps. So, I guess she will rant on and on to herself for a while.
I'm not sure that I ever asked you to engage in a debate.  On the contrary.  Some time back I asked that you EXPLAIN on what grounds you rejected our claim for your over unity prize.  Golly In any event.  My dear Poynty - ever recurring - PLEASE.  'SPEAK UP'.  DO YOUR THING.  Whatever 'floats your boat' - 'blows up your skirt' - 'paddles your canoe' - JUST GO FOR IT.  Far be it from me to 'gag' anyone at all.  God knows.  It's insufferable.    And IF, indeed, this dialogue will then be construed as a 'debate' - then who am I to deny you the use of such a prestigious term. 

Quote from: and yet more from our Poynty point recurring
I get a kick out of her post regarding the so-called capacitor test. Wow, who would have thought that the oscillation would die when the batteries were removed? We all thought the capacitor would continue to hold the fort, didn't we?

Good grief

.99
And this?  LOL.  Are you proposing that YOU and HARTI et al - didn't seriously require us all to replace our batteries with a capacitor?  I'm reasonably certain that you did.  It was a clamorous appeal promoted on the understanding that somehow one could separate a current from its source and then RE-CYCLE this.  Which would be outside the scope of even our standard model's assumptions related to the properties of electric current.  Not that the idea hasn't got merit.  Just that it lacks scientific merit.

Anyway Poynty Point.  PLEASE.  If you EVER feel that I've written something that you can REFUTE - anything at all that you think may 'error' as you like put it - then.  AGAIN.  DO NOT HOLD BACK.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 29, 2012, 03:24:27 AM
And Poynty,

Here's that extract again.  Do you want to start with this?  It seems to be bugging you.

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.

Kindest as ever
Rosie

 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 29, 2012, 06:52:46 AM
Oh well guys.  It seems that Poynty ONLY wants it to 'appear' that he's not allowed his 'chance' to argue.  Fair enough.  He now REALLY needs to use every propagandising tool in the tool box.  LOL.  And clearly.  He has no grounds to argue - nor the courage to try.  It all bodes well for the progress of this new science.  Much needed. 

Since this is all straying a tad off topic - I'd also like to bring something else to your attention - lest it's eluded you all thus far.  That 'hate blog' of mine was put on the internet by someone who calls himself 'the Boss'.  Golly.  One assumes then that he's the 'man'.   The guy that 'pays his employees' and calls the shots.  And what then does that say about Poynty, Humbugger, Tinsel Koaloa, Cat Lady?  -  And on - and ON?  Do they have a defined 'job specification' that is 'required' to conform to whatever it is that 'the boss' needs?  Presumably.  I think that's certainly a fair presumption - on the face of it.  Well.  I also know that one of their more dedicated contributors is a certain 'Mookie'.  LOL.  The name sort of skids around associations with 'Mucky' and 'Mooching' and 'Mocking' and such like insinuations.  It gives an indication of how it is that they all choose their names.  Well just for the record.  I happen to KNOW who Mookie is.  I have his 'number'.  Specifically I HAD his number.  It's an IP address that some rather active investigators managed to 'discover' in their dedicated search related to Nuclear Expansion Programs - here in South Africa.  So.  I'm hoping that this little post of mine will be a small guide to the 'laws of the land'.  It's widely considered 'CRIMINAL' to accuse anyone of FRAUD - unless one also has the PROOF of that fraud.  And the first requirement in any fraudulent accusation is to find EVIDENCE of 'conning the public' or a 'member of the public' out of their hard earned money.  Without that evidence  then any unsubstantiated accusation of FRAUD is - ITSELF - CRIMINAL.  And here's the joke.  We have actual CRIMINALS FRAUDULENTLY claiming fraud.  And Google enables this - enables any allegations - dressed up in any manner of hate speech required - provided ONLY that the identities of those criminals remains protected.  Which means that Google - itself - is enabling criminal activities in the name of 'freedom of speech'.  Where does all this accountability end?  And how absurd is that?

I was in discussion about that Hate Blog with a kindly professor who advised me that he's well aware of it.  LOL.  He's words 'They're trying to look up your skirts.'  :o ' It's because they're jealous.'  IF ONLY.  My own take is because they're all rather anxious to promote nuclear expansion programs and equally anxious to prevent this seemingly 'unstoppable' march to CHEAP AND ABUNDANT energy.

All rather twisted.  But it needs saying. Else why in Heaven's name is there this FRANTIC effort to try and discredit our work?  I ask you?  It may have been justified if I'd EVER attempted to capitalise on this.  And I most assuredly HAVE NOT.  I've only encouraged others to reap the benefit. 

 :o :( :'( 8)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

In the unlikely event that any of you want to get familiar with this - here's the link.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on February 29, 2012, 07:21:31 AM
Here we go again. Rosemary STILL refuses to deal with this: Here is the entire basis for her claim of excess energy and battery recharging from the experiments she claims to have done.
I've explained the math errors and the conceptual errors before. Note well: the claim of excess anything is based on the MATH ERROR and when the calculation is done correctly it is evident that the batteries could perform many such tests without being appreciably discharged.
Until Rosemary RETRACTS the claims made here and CORRECTS the math errors, I don't think it's necessary or proper to discuss any current testing, because she will try to "analyze" the results according to her technique shown below.

The following is a direct quotation from OU dot com, by Rosemary Ainslie, explaining the basis for her battery recharging/overunity claim.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/660/

Reply # 666 in the thread !!

Quote
NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.


Please..... Stefan, .99, and the other mystery reader...... DO THE MATH.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 29, 2012, 09:54:33 AM
Dear TK,

There comes a time in the life of a forum where the 'trolls' are identified by their insistence on repeating the same complaint over and over and over.  Your own contributions as a dedicated 'disclaimer' of all things clean and green - are well known.  Also apparent is your insistence on repeating the same complaint - time out of mind - with the clear intention of 'flaming' this thread to DEATH.  Let me remind you.  Here's the ANSWER - WRITTEN IN FULL and explained in AS MUCH DETAIL AS IT DESERVES.  I'll propose some other subjects that may be of interest to our readers and to you - hereafter.

Meanwhile, I trust that it's understood that your entire objective here is to DISCREDIT our technology, and any claims associated with this technology based on something that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO OUR PAPER WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE CLAIM associated with this.  While I understand how you RELY on this - may I also IMPOSE on you to read my answer.  That way - when you do decide to 'flame' this thread - you'll at least use some appropriate excuses to do so.

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

And here we have a sample of Poynty's real genius which is to POYNT at anything and everything that is ENTIRELY irrelevant.  As ever he uses those tangenital markers... or is that tangential?  Can never remember.  Either way - those 'poynters' of his are rather too nominal.  They are, to sign posts, what the little finger is to the hand.  Which is both small and dispensable and partially crooked.  I won't include Bubba's comments - because that would really confuse us all.  I get it though that she's trying to pass herself off as a 'man'.  Whatever next?  A man would never be that obsessed.  Unless, like Poynty and some others who post here - they're in drag.  Therefore?  I rest my case.   :-* I'm not sure who else commented.  Mainly because I really don't care enough.  But girls.  Thank you.  I've had my first real laugh both at my own adventurous reach into elementary mathematics and your own transparent need to refer to this and nothing else.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If I didn't know better - I'd be inclined to think that you didn't like me any more than you like our technology.  Fortunately I know this isn't the case.

Anyway lest I entirely lose my 'poynty point' - for sheer want of size and structure - then let me re-iterate.  Or rather. Let Poynty 're-iterate'.  It's a refreshing example of his 'courtesy' which is also lacking in 'parts'.And here's my answer.  AGAIN.

TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!

My dear Poynty Point,

.   If you're referring to the battery draw down test - then may I refer you to my 'conditions'.
.   If you're referring to a demonstration of the tests included in our paper - GLADLY.  Just nominate the venue.
.   If you're referring to that absurd test related to 'lights' and what have you - then 'NO'.

But only because a far more significant variation has been done.  And it resulted in the a single row of LED's STAYING LIT.  And draw your own conclusions from this.  They none of them will conform to standard prediction.

Kindest regards, Poynty Point
From your very own
Rosy Posy
AKA (also known as) Rosie Pose.
 :-* 8) :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 29, 2012, 03:47:13 PM
Dear MilesUpThere

I'm rather tired of the spurious tests that you all propose as being 'definitive' - when they're nothing of the sort.  If I put an AC capacitor in series arranged as follows - bat x 12 volts - to battery x 12 volts - to cap - to battery by 12 volts - to battery by 12 volts.  THEN.  IF and when I disconnect those batteries from the circuit I ASSURE YOU that the voltage on that cap will MOST CERTAINLY equalise to the voltages of the batteries on either side of it.  And that equalisation will apply whether or not the cap is first charged before it's put in series. 

Therefore the test that you propose is MEANINGLESS.  Why should the voltage over the cap be considered to be more or less significant than the voltage across the batteries?  Am I missing something?  Let me know. 

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 29, 2012, 04:08:30 PM
And MileHigh - while I'm at it.  I'm glad to see you've dropped that argument related to the delivery of energy from the battery through the MOSFET source at Q2 to the Gate at Q1.  I get it you now see that it would need to breach the positive signal at the gate at Q1 or simply bypass it's own source to jump from Q2's gate to the Source leg of Q1.  NOT POSSIBLE.  Perhaps now you'll see the relevance of my explanations.  LOL  I just tried to dress it up and make it all a tad more interesting.   ;D

And WHY would you think that I'd answer your posts on my hate blog?  Were you hoping? 

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on February 29, 2012, 10:12:49 PM

Hello Harti,
....
Which new tests?  If you're referring to the use of a 555 switch in place of the function generator - then we've done that test.



Then, why don´t you post the full circuit diagramm and publish the test results ?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 12:12:57 AM
Hello Harti,

Nice to see that you're reading here.  These tests were done during the 'life' - if that's the term - of our previous thread.  That thread was locked - some time back.  One of the many, I might add.  I distinctly recall downloading the test result - AND posting them.  I CERTAINLY remember reporting on it because I we tested it on a battery operated solder iron.  And it worked fine.  In any event.   Not sure why you need a schematic.  It's precisely our standard Q-array schematic but with only 1 transistor at Q1 and Q2 - with the switch driven by your standard 555 timer.  Nothing NEW.   The math trace on the LeCroy computed a negative voltage sum - therefore we're back to that INFINITE COP number. 

Then, why don´t you post the full circuit diagramm and publish the test results ?

We have a real problem when it comes to reporting on the test results.  You see they result in a 'negative' wattage.  And this has absolutely NO relevance to any standard paradigms.  Which is why we're moving to 'publish'.  This anomaly is better determined by our academics.  Wouldn't you say?  I'm not sure that I'm qualified to evaluate the results when they refute the most basic predictions of our Thermodynamic Laws.  I can only point to those results and PROPOSE an explanation.  But that's just to get the ball rolling - so to speak.

What is MUCH more significant is that it seems that some South African inventors have used this circuit variant where two batteries are probably used in parallel with the motorised load.  If this is what they're doing then I think THAT may be an interesting circuit to work on.  I'll see what I can do.  But it will take me until the back end of this weekend.  As you all know - my skills at drawing these circuits are not the most devoloped.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.

And Harti - btw.  Can I impose on you to at least 'address' me when you post here?  Otherwise everyone will assume the same license to show absolutely NO respect for my hard efforts here. 

Again
Rosemary

 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 01, 2012, 12:41:51 AM
Hi Rosemary,
as with the 555 timer it is a new circuit  you
need to post a full circuit diagramms and the test protocol
with the numbers you have taken during the tests.

How was the 555 timer powered ?
A seperate battery
or the same battery ?

It makes no sense to mix up your old circuit with the
function generator where you might had the grid  ground current loop
problem and this new 555 timer circuit.

So it needs a new documentation with precise measurement protocols.

Also you need to disconnect all grounded scopes from the circuit during the longer tests
as this could also have the ground current loop problem.

Also you need to probe the batteries before and after with a battery capacity meter to see their
charge status.

Please quit posting your old measurement results when the function generator was used
as this was enough debunked already.

Regards, Stefan.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 01, 2012, 12:44:20 AM
P.S.  for the battery capacity meter,
discharge the batteries before the experiment to about 50 % charge status
and then run your experiment on these batteries and then after the experiment
let the batteries sit for half an hour at least and then measure the battery charge status again.

If it will be then more then 90 % show this in a video.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 12:46:00 AM
Hi Rosemary,...

Please quit posting your old measurement results when the function generator was used
as this was enough debunked already.

Regards, Stefan.

Hello again Stefan. 

Before we take this conversation any further please explain something.  WHAT OLD TEST?  The tests detailed in our papers?  Or the replication?

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 01:17:08 AM
Harti.  I THINK I'm beginning - FINALLY - to understand you.  The tests in our paper have NOT been DEBUNKED as you put it.  Or - IF THEY HAVE BEEN - then I am ENTIRELY UNAWARE OF THOSE ARGUMENTS.  I have read many arguments that CLAIM to have debunked this.  But they are unsubstantiated.  And if YOU are going to make such a damaging statement - then I propose that you have NOT considered our arguments - NOR read the paper.  And it seems that you are indeed, prepared to expose this technology of ours to some rather damaging and unjustified criticisms that will hardly progress this technology.  Which would be a shame.  The more so as a variation of this is about to be launched to the general public and - I believe they're applying for a patent.

NOW.  Here are the FACTS that are fully referenced in our paper. 

The Tektronix oscilloscope that we used has a dedicated plug, which has no GROUND on it.  That oscilloscope shows PRECISELY the same results as does our LE CROY.  Therefore - we have proof that the results on those oscilloscopes ARE NOT the result of 'grounding issues'.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer shows PRECISELY the same self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that this self-sustaining oscillation does not result from some vagary associated with the function generator.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer can itself be powered from the supply battery and resulting in the SAME self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that there is no 'extraneous' power introduced to the circuit.

The circuit can be replicated on a standard simulation software where precisely the same negative wattage is evident - which indicates that our own Inductive Laws provide for this anomaly.  Therefore - strictly - IT IS NOT an anomaly.

I'll deal with your posts - in detail - hereafter.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 01:44:55 AM
This post has been hopelessly corrupted with nested quotes.  I'll try this again in two posts.

Hi Rosemary,
as with the 555 timer it is a new circuit  you need to post a full circuit diagramms and the test protocol with the numbers you have taken during the tests.
The 555 timer was a variation ONLY to the DRIVER of the switch.  Our schematic is still PRECISELY as per our paper. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE was to the load.  We used a SOLDER IRON in one test - and we used two opposing banks of LED's in another.  While the results were interesting - and while both tests resulted in an INFINITE co-efficient of performance - neither test would 'cut it' for our paper - as the range of settings is too limited.  The function generator allows us MORE OPTIONS and it results in better heat dissipation.  They're ONLY value was precisely to determine whether there was some vagary introduced as a result of the function generator - that we could PUT THAT COMPLAINT TO BED.

How was the 555 timer powered ? A seperate battery or the same battery ?
BOTH.  And both were tested on INDEPENDENT batteries.  The solder iron was actually tested on our own bank of batteries as well. 

It makes no sense to mix up your old circuit with the function generator where you might had the grid  ground current loop problem and this new 555 timer circuit.
This has been fully addressed in my previous post.  Just to keep it in focus - here's that answer again.

The Tektronix oscilloscope that we used has a dedicated plug, which has no GROUND on it.  That oscilloscope shows PRECISELY the same results as does our LE CROY.  Therefore - we have proof that the results on those oscilloscopes ARE NOT the result of 'grounding issues'.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer shows PRECISELY the same self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that this self-sustaining oscillation does not result from some vagary associated with the function generator.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer can itself be powered from the supply battery and resulting in the SAME self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that there is no 'extraneous' power introduced to the circuit.

The circuit can be replicated on a standard simulation software where precisely the same negative wattage is evident - which indicates that our own Inductive Laws provide for this anomaly.  Therefore - strictly - IT IS NOT an anomaly.

continued/...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 01, 2012, 01:52:52 AM
Getting all charged up  ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 01:53:41 AM
So it needs a new documentation with precise measurement protocols.
WHY?  They do not form any part of the required range of results required for our paper.  They were ONLY done to obviate complaints against grounding issues.

Also you need to disconnect all grounded scopes from the circuit during the longer tests as this could also have this ground current loop problem.
Not actually.  Also explained in that reference.  Please read it.

Also you need to probe the batteries before and after with a battery capacity meter to see their charge status.
Had we taken the trouble to do this - then we would NOT have been able to include this in our paper as a Professor Jandrell from WITS university advised us that ANY evaluation of the battery was IRRELEVANT to the claim.

Please quit posting your old measurement results when the function generator was used as this was enough debunked already.
Stefan - THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT - it is damaging. Do I take it then that you're trying to DISMISS the claims in our paper?  Notwithstanding the fact that we have entirely PROVED every single point that you raise as a possible objection? And if so then WHY?

Regards,
Rosemary[/quote]
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 02:12:05 AM
And Harti - AGAIN

I am more than happy to do this test provided only that the protocols are approved by a couple of academic experts.  Else any further tests are a waste of time.  We've been at this 'second generation' - so to speak of this circuit for FAR TOO LONG.  I am not doing any more tests.  I'm of the opinion - with respect - that it would not make an iota of difference and it would be demanded of me that I can run around in circles addressing whatever whimsical requirement occurs to you all.  And it's not as if these tests are requested.  You seem to think that you can demand them.  The onus is on me and me only - to prove these claims under definitive conditions.  We have done this except for the final battery draw down test.  I'm more than happy to do this.  But ONLY if it CAN be considered definitive.  I would have thought that Professor Jones would easily find the required expertise to get this endorsement.

Regards,
Rosemary

Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.   :o Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   8)

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.
 

I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 02:15:11 AM
And Poynty point.  DELIGHTED to see that you're actually doing a replication?  Is that what you're showing?  You need to tell us how you're going to determine the optimum settings required.  I'm afraid it's NOT possible without access to those scopes that can do math trace.  Else you'll spend an awfully long time trying to find the required settings.

Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 01, 2012, 02:38:05 AM
Not a replication of hardware, rather I'll be replicating your wave forms and measurements with my own circuit, which has already been published on this forum.

The scope is not a problem, I'll be using my own most likely.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 02:48:45 AM
MileHigh - I have been assured that there's always a marginal drop in voltage across a capacitor when it's disconnected from its charge source.  Is that what you're relying on?  Which makes which of the two us 'morally bankrupt'?

And you need to substantiate your claim that a battery can discharge current through any transistor at all without passing through its source leg.  Alternatively IF the discharge is through the source leg of Q2 to the Gate of Q1 - then you also need to argue how it IGNORES the negative charge applied to the Gate of Q1. 

Don't repeat your claim.  Argue it.  Otherwise you have NO credibility with this claim of yours that the battery is discharging through it's Q2's source leg to the gate of Q1.  And it really doesn't matter how indignant you pretend to be when you 'claim' that this happens - IT SIMPLY DOES NOT.  It CANNOT.  Unless it can bypass Q1 which is where the signal probe is sitting.  And that applied signal is NEGATIVE.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 01, 2012, 06:57:34 AM
Rosemary,
where is the circuit diagramm of the 555 timer test ?

Did I miss this ?

Please post again the links to it and to your latest PDF papers...
Thanks-
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 01, 2012, 03:43:38 PM
Stefan,

My investigation into the FG issue revealed that it's important to consider whether the bias is set to a negative or positive value. This determines which MOSFET is active, and which is not. In either case, the MOSFETs require a good AC path to ground, and it appears the FG is providing that in one case. I doubt very much that the FG is supplying the 30 some Watts of power going to the load however, especially considering there is a 50 Ohm resistor on its output.

If Rosemary does a test with a 555 timer as the driver, I would like to see a 50 Ohm resistor connected to its output as well. This way, we'll see if the circuit still oscillates. Without the resistor, I am quite sure it will.

The real issues are 1) Rosemary's battery energy calculations (per TK), and 2) her battery voltage measurement, which I intend to clear up soon.

It would be far more productive imho, if the focus was on some of the tests we have suggested in the recent and distant past, which would provide definitive evidence that the circuit is underunity.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 01, 2012, 04:31:57 PM
Guys

We've got a very sick member of the family.  I need to rally.  I'll post here at the weekend - hopefully.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 02, 2012, 02:06:48 AM
Harti,

Again.  The circuit is per out schematic included in our paper.  I'll see if I can download again.  The differences are ONLY in the applied signal.  Not from a function generator - but a 555.  And there is only 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2.   Do you get it yet?  If not, then let me know.  If you want a circuit diagram of a 555 - there are many available on the internet.  They all work - with varying levels of efficiency.  THEN.  Where you see 'load' RL1 - just picture - in your mind's eye - that we've got a battery operated solder iron in place of the element resistor that we reference in our paper.  And OBVIOUSLY the shunt resistor.  This is still 0.25 Ohms ... I think.  Actually - it may have been 0.2 Ohms.  Can't actually remember. 

I'm not sure that I ever did download the waveforms.  And I'm not about to wade through those multiple pages of 'flamed' threads to find them.  I do, however, have some downloads where this was tested from our own batteries.  I'll try and find them.   

Rosemary,
where is the circuit diagramm of the 555 timer test ?

Did I miss this ?

Please post again the links to it and to your latest PDF papers...
Thanks-

About our papers.  I have sent you copies of these per email.  Have you lost these?  If so, again.  Let me know.  I'll send them again for your private perusal.  I've been advised NOT to publish these here until such time as they're published as reviewed papers.  Which is immanent. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 02, 2012, 02:23:16 AM
Hello Poynty Point

May I impose on your to clarify these comments.

My investigation into the FG issue revealed that it's important to consider whether the bias is set to a negative or positive value.
What setting to what 'negative bias'? 

This determines which MOSFET is active, and which is not. In either case, the MOSFETs require a good AC path to ground
When does a MOSFET require an AC PATH?  And what GROUND are you referring to?

and it appears the FG is providing that in one case.
In WHICH 'case' are you referring to?  And how exactly is this managed?

I doubt very much that the FG is supplying the 30 some Watts of power going to the load however, especially considering there is a 50 Ohm resistor on its output.
Where EXACTLY is that 50 Ohm resistor in any of our schematics.  And when does a MOSFET ever OUTPUT anything at all?

If Rosemary does a test with a 555 timer as the driver, I would like to see a 50 Ohm resistor connected to its output as well.
Are you now requiring us to increase the applied resistance - and IF SO WHY?  Quite apart from which can you NOT REMEMBER that I've already said I won't be doing more tests?  Not until you have provided guarantees that ANY SUCH TEST will be conclusive for our claims for your PRIZES? Do you remember this Poynty?  The WHOLE purpose of my reopening this thread was for purposes of CLAIMING YOUR PRIZES.

This way, we'll see if the circuit still oscillates. Without the resistor, I am quite sure it will.
Why should we do this test 'without the resistor'?  It seems somewhat pointless. 

The real issues are 1) Rosemary's battery energy calculations (per TK),
Is this yet more 'INFERENCE' to a small mistake I made in calculations?  And can I thereby construe that you abusing it's value in order to detract from the actual claim as detailed in that paper?

and 2) her battery voltage measurement, which I intend to clear up soon.
WHAT battery voltage is that?  I am not sure that we have CLAIMED anything at all about the battery voltage in our paper.  In point of fact we ONLY stressed that we have NOT considered battery voltage.  Do I need to explain this as well?  Again? May I IMPOSE on you to keep your comments RELEVANT TO OUR CLAIM.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 02, 2012, 02:35:57 AM
Guys,

I'm not sure whether it's deliberate.  But I'm beginning to see the 'technique'.  Here it is.  It is ALLEGED that the claims have been discounted - AS PRESENTED.  I argue this through 40 odd pages of internet correspondence.  Those arguments are IGNORED.  The allegation is made that my claims have been discounted.  I ARGUE THIS THROUGH 40 odd MORE pages of internet correspondence.  Those arguments are IGNORED.

And so it goes.  I'm not sure that our poor little claim will ever make it on these forums.  The good news however and God willing - is that the papers are about to be published.  And doubly EXCELLENT is that they'll be reviewed by acknowledged EXPERTS.  This TEDIOUS prattle presented with all the pretensions of actual 'KNOWLEDGE OF THE ART' - is utterly DESTRUCTIVE to any claims related to over unity - let alone claims of INFINITE co-efficient of performance.

And Guys.  NOTA BENE.  We have on offer a definitive test related to battery draw downs - which I am MORE THAN HAPPY to conduct - SUBJECT ONLY TO THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by no less than 2 ACADEMIC EXPERTS - that this test will be considered DEFINITIVE.  That is ALL that's required.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

added
And also NOTA BENE.  For some reason that offer of a battery draw down test is UTTERLY IGNORED.  Golly.  If I had to draw a conclusion from this - I'd say that there's some CRYING NEED to ignore that challenge.

 :'(
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 02, 2012, 03:53:23 AM
And MileHigh,

IF we're going to 'talk' about 'moral bankruptcy' then may I propose something.  You want me to do a test that you suggests will show 'under unity'.  I cannot argue - because I'm NOT about to do that test.  What I WILL DO, AGAIN, is a full on 'to duration' comparative test between a control and our own system.  Here's my conditions.  Get me any two academic experts who will go PUBLIC with such a test as being definitive - and I'll do those comparative draw down tests - over and over - AND IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW - for as often as it takes to prove this efficiency.  That way I won't be wasting my time - which is what you're hoping to engage me in.

SURELY - with all that KNOWLEDGE of yours and with your apparently 'well accredited' background - you'd be well able to rally a couple of academics to this?  Surely?  IF not you then Poynty?  And IF not Poynty - then Professor Steven E Jones?  And then?  IF we can't show the advantages of a switched system using our technology  - over standard and conventional circuit application  - YOU'LL BE PROVED RIGHT.  ::) And how nice would that be? ;)

So.  MilesUpThere - HOW ABOUT IT?

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 02, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
Seriously, after studying I wonder why everyone lose their time with this...


A test in Falstad will show the weird behavior of that circuit, I cannot imagine finally how this circuit can be OU  :o  .
OMG, Q2 do literally nothing  :o  It just short Q1:


When Q2 is on the current go from the battery to the the inductive resistor Q2  the function generator (if you want to burn it, it's the best circuit :(  ) the shunt and go back to the battery...
Something goes wrong here, in my simulation the inductance is not even pulsed  :o  ...


I post the source code to see yourself...



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 0.12250020577367378
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
w 528 176 400 176 0
w 400 176 400 192 0
f 432 208 400 208 0 1.5
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 400 224 400 288 0
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
w 432 208 496 288 0
w 496 288 528 288 0
o 17 64 1 291 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 20 64 1 291 0.625 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 2.5 9.765625E-5 2 -1




www.falstad.com


Can someone explain what's wrong here !?
SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 03, 2012, 01:18:09 AM
Hello Schubert,

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I have no idea how one does these simulations.  But I'm delighted that you're exploring this.  Can we at least see a picture of your waveforms?  I know that this waveform has been simulated by a number of people - including Poynty Point.  I get it that you don't get any oscillation at all? Or is it that you get something that's always greater than zero?

Either way - it would be nice to see what you do get.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 03, 2012, 01:38:12 AM
My dear MileHigh

I keep hoping to post something to the effect 'FINALLY - NO MORE COUNTER ARGUMENT.  ALL IS SILENCE'.  Instead of which I get your background prattle.  Hopefully this post will do the trick.  Your following three nominated conditions refer.

1) If the capacitor decreases in voltage, the batteries are outputting a measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

2) If the capacitor does not change in voltage, the batteries are showing no measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

3) If the capacitor increases in voltage, the batteries are receiving a measurable amount of net energy from the rest of the circuit after ten seconds, i.e.; they are being recharged.


All three conditions depend on any claim at all that suggests that there is either MORE or LESS  power going to the battery which somehow will be proven by replacing one of those batteries with a capacitor.   This has nothing AT ALL to do with our CLAIM. 

Here is our claim.

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.

-/...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 03, 2012, 01:42:19 AM
Harti,

Again.  The circuit is per out schematic included in our paper.  I'll see if I can download again.  The differences are ONLY in the applied signal.  Not from a function generator - but a 555.  And there is only 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2.   Do you get it yet?  If not, then let me know.  If you want a circuit diagram of a 555 - there are many available on the internet.  They all work - with varying levels of efficiency.  THEN.  Where you see 'load' RL1 - just picture - in your mind's eye - that we've got a battery operated solder iron in place of the element resistor that we reference in our paper.  And OBVIOUSLY the shunt resistor.  This is still 0.25 Ohms ... I think.  Actually - it may have been 0.2 Ohms.  Can't actually remember. 

I'm not sure that I ever did download the waveforms.  And I'm not about to wade through those multiple pages of 'flamed' threads to find them.  I do, however, have some downloads where this was tested from our own batteries.  I'll try and find them.   

About our papers.  I have sent you copies of these per email.  Have you lost these?  If so, again.  Let me know.  I'll send them again for your private perusal.  I've been advised NOT to publish these here until such time as they're published as reviewed papers.  Which is immanent. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary.
it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer,
otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your
circuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.

Also your 2 PDF files did not contain any 555 circuit, just your old outdated circuit with the
function generator and the ground loop and measurement problems...

Also no battery status tests .

For a real test you need to see the status of your batteries before and after the tests....


So try to run these tests, document them in detail and then come back here...
all other postings without doing new tests are just wasted time...

Did you yet met GotoLuc in South Africa ?
Maybe he can help you setup the measurements the right way.
He also knows how to post it to youtube.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 03, 2012, 02:13:43 AM
Harti - I have answered this.  But let me try this again.

Rosemary.
it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer, otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your circuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.
We most certainly DID do that test.  It was required to counter the claim that the use of the function generator was somehow responsible for that oscillation and/or it's apparent benefits.  We most certainly did NOT need to reference an alternate schematic.  It's EXACTLY the same schematic as our detailed in our paper which I added to my previous post to you.  The ONLY DIFFERENCE IS that the signal generator is now a 555 switch.  And the work load RL1 was a battery powered solder iron.   

It seems that no matter WHAT I write the answer is ignored.  Could I impose on you to actually READ this reply Stefan?  We ONLY included a REFERENCE to that test - AS REQUIRED - so that anyone reading our papers could duplicate the test - as required.  Then they too will see the same oscillation and the same benefits.  Since that 555 test is NOT the experiment under review it does not require a separate schematic.

Now.  Perhaps I can get back to my intentions in posting here.  I revived this thread in order to challenge Poynt.99 and Professor Steven E Jones - to claim their prizes for proof of over unity.  I have offered an entirely CONCLUSIVE TEST for their consideration - by defining a comparative battery draw down test or our test apparatus vs a control.  That is all that's needed.  AND then INDEED - we would need to do a very public 3rd test to show that the 555 switched circuit DOES NOT ADD ENERGY to the circuit.  But that's the ONLY context in which it would be needed to this test.

Believe it or not - these 40 odd pages of thread are ONLY the argument that we HAVE A VALID CLAIM FOR THOSE PRIZES.  And this, for some reason is DENIED?  :'( SO.  In order to put ALL ARGUMENTS TO BED - I've proposed that we run these final and DEFINITIVE TESTS.  I am more than happy to do this.  But it will take some time.  And it will involve me in some expense.  Therefore, I need to KNOW that IF I run these tests - IF we can show that the batteries under test conditions have lost NO CHARGE AT ALL - while the batteries under a control - DISCHARGE ALL THEIR ENERGY - then we will have proved our claim. 

But I will not do ANY more testing - until such time as this is conceded as being CONCLUSIVE PROOF and that this opinion is shared with at least two academic experts.  That way - my time and money is NOT wasted.  Because, IF a couple of academics endorse this as conclusive proof and IF I run these tests under the required supervision - then there will never again be any academic or any person anywhere at all who would be able to JUSTIFY denying this claim.  And that would be MOST desirable.

I am TIRED of arguing the merits of our claim.  I want to PROVE IT.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 03, 2012, 03:31:27 AM
And MileHigh - this is reference to the balance of your post.

Quote from: MilesUpThere at OUR.com
The test I proposed is not designed to "suggest under unity."  That's ridiculous, it's designed to simply show the truth
Truth?  Golly.  I rather suspect that what you're proposing is that we do a test that is entirely irrelevant to our claim - in the hopes of thereby disproving our claim.  Which means that the term 'truth' as applied by you - is only what you truly hope will be the result.

Quote from: MilesOffTheMark at OUR.com
Now, the simple fact is that I know for certain that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease after ten seconds.  If your "COP infinity" fantasy is true, then the voltage on the capacitor will increase after ten seconds.
WOW.  This is when that 'truth' becomes relative to - a 'kissing cousin of' pure fantasy.  To the best of my knowledge there is no means by which a capacitor can INCREASE it's voltage when it's disconnected from a supply.  And I have been assured that MOST capacitors are subject to 'leakage' when they're disconnected. 

Quote from: MilesFromThePoint at OUR.com
So what are you afraid of Rosemary?  In theory, my proposed test will either confirm or deny that your fantasy is true and it will only take 10 seconds to do so.
I'm only 'afraid' that you've missed the point of our paper.  Nothing new here.

Quote from: MilesOfNothingButPropaganda at OUR.com
Don't bother mentioning that you would have to double-check this first with "academic experts."  The test is real so don't try some amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness.  Don't hide under that
Nothing to do with amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness.  Everything to do with keeping tests within the context of our claim.

-/...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 03, 2012, 03:32:54 AM
Quote from: MilesFromAValidArgument at OUR.com
My test will take 10 seconds.  The comparative battery draw-down test is a complicated and difficult to do affair that will take days and days to do properly and will not necessarily be conclusive.  The battery draw-down test will easily generate another 50 pages worth of debate.  I have no confidence that you or anyone on your team could do the tests properly and document the tests properly.  It's just another quagmire waiting to happen.  It's so easy to see that coming.
I would DEPEND on the stipulated test parameters approved by EXPERTS.  And unlike your test which only goes to the measure of capacitor leakage - our test would be CONCLUSIVE of benefit to our application.
 
Quote from: MilesOfMisdirection at OUR.com
All that you need to do is double check your power measurements that were done with the DSO.  The scientific method calls for double-checking measurements with an alternative method, especially when the first round of measurements are suspicious, as yours clearly are.  The capacitor test will do that for you in 10 seconds and it has millions of times more resolution than the DSO.  This is a simple fact.
The 'first round' of tests are over 100 independent tests strong - each showing an INFINITE co-efficient of performance.  The capacitor test is only a test on the capacitor's ability to retain charge - OR NOT.  Can't see the relevance.
 
Quote from: MilesOfGratuitousInsults at OUR.com
But after seeing your postings yesterday, one thing is abundantly clear:  Because you have no background in electronics and you still can barely express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy, you have almost no capacity whatsoever to learn and retain material that has been taught to you multiple times.  Knowledge rolls off your back and out of your brain like water rolls off the clean and oiled feathers of a duck.  So there is just no point, you are a blank slate that repeatedly blanks itself out over time.
It continually intrigues me that with my evident lack of training - my alarming and profound lack of intelligence - and the vacuity of my mind - that I am nonetheless able to counter every single argument put forward by all you 'nay sayers' - with comparative ease and with surprisingly adequate articulation.  Which only goes to show that it's possibly preferred to be quite as stupid as I clearly am.  In any event.  I don't mind it one little bit.
 
Quote from: MilesOfIdleBoasts at OUR.com
Hence it's time to throw the towel in and listen to music instead.
If this is the advice you're giving yourself - far be it from me to dissuade you.  PLEASE.  Feel free. 
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 03, 2012, 06:17:58 AM
You're still dodging, Rosie. Perhaps you simply do not understand the issue.

Let's break it down. Is this or is this not a correct statement? THAT is a YES or NO question. It only takes a single word to answer it.

Quote
We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Is a Joule = 1 Watt per second? THAT is also a YES or NO question. It only takes a single word to answer it.

Just answer that much, for goodness sake.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 03, 2012, 03:30:36 PM
Hello Schubert,

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I have no idea how one does these simulations.  But I'm delighted that you're exploring this.  Can we at least see a picture of your waveforms?  I know that this waveform has been simulated by a number of people - including Poynty Point.  I get it that you don't get any oscillation at all? Or is it that you get something that's always greater than zero?

Either way - it would be nice to see what you do get.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Heres a link to the circuit-

circuit sim (http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+10.20027730826997+50+5.0+50%0Aw+208+144+208+96+0%0Aw+208+96+256+96+0%0Ar+256+96+304+96+0+20.0%0Al+304+96+384+96+0+0.1+0.12250020574663117%0Aw+384+96+464+96+0%0Aw+464+96+464+144+0%0Aw+464+144+336+144+0%0Aw+336+144+336+160+0%0Af+368+176+336+176+0+1.5%0Af+432+176+464+176+0+1.5%0Aw+464+144+464+160+0%0Aw+464+192+464+256+0%0Aw+464+256+464+304+0%0Aw+464+304+464+368+0%0Aw+464+368+208+368+0%0Aw+208+368+208+272+0%0Ar+208+272+208+192+0+0.1%0Av+208+192+208+144+0+0+40.0+12.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Aw+336+192+336+256+0%0Aw+464+304+336+304+0%0Av+336+304+336+256+0+2+50.0+5.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Aw+336+256+368+256+0%0Aw+368+256+432+176+0%0Aw+368+176+432+256+0%0Aw+432+256+464+256+0%0Ao+17+64+1+291+5.0+9.765625E-5+0+-1%0Ao+20+64+1+291+0.625+9.765625E-5+1+-1%0A)


Its a simple drag and drop tool, and very basic but you can also use it to create schematics of a working circuit with a 555 and all the correct values. The sim itself may not show your effect but its a great way to experiment without letting the smoke out of components  ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 03, 2012, 04:40:56 PM
Heres a link to the circuit-

circuit sim (http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+10.20027730826997+50+5.0+50%0Aw+208+144+208+96+0%0Aw+208+96+256+96+0%0Ar+256+96+304+96+0+20.0%0Al+304+96+384+96+0+0.1+0.12250020574663117%0Aw+384+96+464+96+0%0Aw+464+96+464+144+0%0Aw+464+144+336+144+0%0Aw+336+144+336+160+0%0Af+368+176+336+176+0+1.5%0Af+432+176+464+176+0+1.5%0Aw+464+144+464+160+0%0Aw+464+192+464+256+0%0Aw+464+256+464+304+0%0Aw+464+304+464+368+0%0Aw+464+368+208+368+0%0Aw+208+368+208+272+0%0Ar+208+272+208+192+0+0.1%0Av+208+192+208+144+0+0+40.0+12.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Aw+336+192+336+256+0%0Aw+464+304+336+304+0%0Av+336+304+336+256+0+2+50.0+5.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Aw+336+256+368+256+0%0Aw+368+256+432+176+0%0Aw+368+176+432+256+0%0Aw+432+256+464+256+0%0Ao+17+64+1+291+5.0+9.765625E-5+0+-1%0Ao+20+64+1+291+0.625+9.765625E-5+1+-1%0A)


Its a simple drag and drop tool, and very basic but you can also use it to create schematics of a working circuit with a 555 and all the correct values. The sim itself may not show your effect but its a great way to experiment without letting the smoke out of components  ;D

Thanks for this Flux It.  Very intriguing. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 01:36:11 AM
Guys, I've re-read the last four pages.  Tediously repetitive doesn't begin to describe it.  It's surprising that there are even 3 readers here - as Poynty claims.  I'll see if I can get this argument back on track.

We claim that test results shown on over 500 screen downloads - and over 200 different settings to the applied duty cycle to our circuit - results in a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  This 'negative wattage' has no meaning.  It is a term that has absolutely NO RELEVANCE of any kind WHATSOEVER to our standard model.  And this because wattage must ALWAYS result in some value equal to but never greater than '1'.  So.  Either our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we have an alternate energy supply to the battery supply source.  Since our protocols conform to standard requirements then we explore the second option.  We propose that energy is, indeed, REGENERATED through Back Electromotive Force.  We've put that question to our academics in the two-part paper.

What you guys want to know is this.  IS there, IN FACT, proof of any kind of energy efficiency evident in the batteries?  Do they exceed their watt hour rating?  Now.  This is not something that needs to be debated.  It NEEDS TO BE TESTED.  BUT.  There is no point at ALL in testing this without academic endorsement.  This is because these forums are NOT the ultimate arbitrator of any such outlandish claim.  Open Source experiments and opinions are IGNORED.  And the objective surely - is to engage our mainstream scientists.  Therefore.  We'll GLADLY do a battery draw down test - that we can prove this - or not - provided ONLY that it actually engages our academics.  IT SHOULD BE VERY EASY for Professor Jones, for Poynty, for MileHigh, for all these 'vaunted' and 'so called' EXPERTS to solicit the engagement of just 2 of our academics.  I CAN'T.  I've tried but failed.  But then again.  I HAVE NO ACCREDITATION.  While THEY, on the other hand, most certainly do.  They must know SOME academics?  SURELY? One would expect that they would be able to pick up the phone and chat to their esteemed and revered from their various Alma Maters?  These 'forum personalities' should be able to get into this kind of engagement?  One would think?

So.  Poynty Point - Professor Jones - MileHigh - whoever - here's what's needed.  Either engage the active participation of 2 academic experts to evaluate the protocols for the battery draw down tests - OR - acknowledge our claim on the merits that have been presented - which means that we deserve your prizes BY DEFAULT - OR - attend a demonstration of our own experiments.  Your arguments 'against' this evidence have been thin and wanting in any scientific merit or evidence.  Ours on the contrary - have the indisputable merit of experimental EVIDENCE.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited - changed had to 'hand'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 04, 2012, 01:58:26 AM
My,

It's a good thing arguments like yours don't usually stand up in court, otherwise there would be twice the number of criminals running around on the loose than there already are.  ::)

You can't get any academics to jump on-board with you eh? Well THAT should tell you something. Use your noggin.

How about we ask YOU to provide two accredited academics with fully disclosed credentials who back you up, to come forward endorsing your measurements and claims? THEN we can look at considering your application for the prizes.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 02:44:43 AM
As ever, Poynty Point - your argument depends on definition.  This time what's needed is a definition of 'criminal'...
My.  It's a good thing arguments like yours don't usually stand up in court, otherwise there would be twice the number of criminals running around on the loose than there already are.  ::)
Are you suggesting that the claim for the prize is criminal - or the refusal of that prize in criminal.  There are two sides to this argument.  LOL .  And, in any event, with either option, it would result in rather more than less criminals 'running around on the loose' if the claim doesn't 'stand up in court'.  This, because you also aver that any such claim/counterclaim - whatever - is advanced by criminals.  You see this I trust.  Your argument is 'fallacious' - spins around a load of nonsense - pivots on a poynty point.

You can't get any academics to jump on-board with you eh? Well THAT should tell you something. Use your noggin.
You're right.  Of course you are.  Our academics are most reluctant to engage.  And I get it that they won't engage with you either.  Golly.  That's tough.  BUT ALL IS NOT LOST.  I'll put money on it that this will be widely tested once our papers are published.  Then INDEED - if we get that much needed 'replication' after publication - THEN INDEED - we'll be able to come to you for our prize.  Retrospectively.  That's fine.

How about we ask YOU to provide two accredited academics with fully disclosed credentials who back you up, to come forward endorsing your measurements and claims? THEN we can look at considering your application for the prizes.
I'll try this again.  It's true that I'm now aware of many more sympathetic academics.  But I'm not sure that I want to expose them to the 'flak' they'll get for engaging prior to publication.  So.  I'll wait patiently.  It shouldn't be that much longer now.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

edited 'now'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 04, 2012, 04:01:15 AM
Harti - I have answered this.  But let me try this again.
We most certainly DID do that test.  It was required to counter the claim that the use of the function generator was somehow responsible for that oscillation and/or it's apparent benefits.  We most certainly did NOT need to reference an alternate schematic.  It's EXACTLY the same schematic as our detailed in our paper which I added to my previous post to you.  The ONLY DIFFERENCE IS that the signal generator is now a 555 switch.  And the work load RL1 was a battery powered solder iron.   



Regards
Rosemary


What where the components connected to the 555 chip ?

What RC values and frequency was set ?

You really need a circuit diagram and a measurement protocol and
a battery status test before and after the test run...

Again, this all was not provided and is still missing and you did not send me any circuit digramm
which shows how the 555 chip and R and C components was used in there...

Get your facts straight and do a scientific measurement with protocolled test runs
and post the COMPLETE circuit diagramm and the frequencies you used, etc...

The most import thing is the battery status test that you also did not do.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 05:31:19 AM

What where the components connected to the 555 chip ?

What RC values and frequency was set ?

You really need a circuit diagram and a measurement protocol and
a battery status test before and after the test run...

Again, this all was not provided and is still missing and you did not send me any circuit digramm
which shows how the 555 chip and R and C components was used in there...

Get your facts straight and do a scientific measurement with protocolled test runs
and post the COMPLETE circuit diagramm and the frequencies you used, etc...
These points have been answered. 

The most import thing is the battery status test that you also did not do.
I agree that this is the most important thing.  But it can only be answered CONCLUSIVELY by doing a comparative analysis of the battery draw down tests.  I am happy to engage.  But it will cost both time and money.  Therefore to do this test we would need some unequivocal undertaking that these tests will be considered CONCLUSIVE.  That means that more than 1 and not less than 2 academic experts need to confirm the protocols for that test.  I can't get this.  Can you?  If you manage it - then we will GLADLY do that test.  It is the ONLY CONCLUSIVE TEST that I know of to prove that our claim results in any kind of energy efficiency.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 04, 2012, 12:08:17 PM
In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing, seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?


In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...


So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?
A good comparison will be:


1) Take two same and charged battery.
2) Running one circuit directly...
3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...
4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.
5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!
6) If not, time to try another things...
7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...
8 ) END.


Regards, SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 04, 2012, 01:54:35 PM
SRM,

Rosemary won't perform that test (or ANY for that matter) for any number of excuses, we've seen many.

Anyone making a wild claim like hers ought to have the sense of mind to validate their claim on their own by at least one other method. But alas, Rosemary has not provided corroborating data from an additional test of any sort.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 01:57:39 PM
Hi Schubert,
In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing,
Interestingly - it sort of performs as Poynty claimed it would - that there is ALWAYS a path for the battery through either Q1 or Q2's gate to source.  That's where the diagram errs - or as Poynty puts it - 'errors'.  Q2 has no source leg for the discharge except through Q1's Gate.  And Q1's gate has an applied negative signal that would repel any discharge from the battery.  Can you model that too Schubert?  It would be most interesting - but calls for an 'unconventional' MOSFET diagram.  I'll post the schematic again.  Q2 is on the left Q1 on the right.
seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?
No.  It's only required that there's a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of Q1.  It works fine to generate that oscillation.  Which is extraordinary - because under these conditions - ie with the use of just one FET with ONLY an applied negative signal - then the battery is unarguably NOT delivering any energy.  The question then is HOW does the positive half of each oscillation develop?
In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...
EXACTLY.  Which is why we claim an anomaly.  We get MORE energy returned to the supply than delivered.  AND we've got some pretty hefty heat signatures over the workstation - RL1.
So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?
I'm well aware of Bedini's claims.  Our's is ONLY different in that we've got this on a solid state system - with heat dissipated rather than motors.  It seems that the 'recharge' to the battery is still the same.  Not sure because I've never tested this on motors.
1) Take two same and charged battery.2) Running one circuit directly...3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!6) If not, time to try another things...7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...8 ) END.
This is PRECISELY the battery draw down test that I keep proposing to Poynty.  I'll do this gladly.  But I would need to know that I'm not wasting my time when I run this test.  The last thing any of us want is another DEBATE.  It needs to be acknowledged that this will be FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  And to get it there - we'd need the test parameters and protocols defined by an academic expert.  Poynty et al do not have the required expertise - unfortunately.  Not that they're not experts.  They possibly are.  But they're not experts in Power Engineering - which is what's required to get these results acknowledged.   

Let me know if you can vary that design against this diagram that I'm attaching Schubert.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 02:04:36 PM
SRM,

Rosemary won't perform that test (or ANY for that matter) for any number of excuses, we've seen many.

Anyone making a wild claim like hers ought to have the sense of mind to validate their claim on their own by at least one other method. But alas, Rosemary has not provided corroborating data from an additional test of any sort.

My dear Poynty Point,
As ever you - 'error'.  We've validated our claim through 'multiple' alternative tests - all detailed in our paper.  We've proved all the corroborating data required - to prove our experiment under review - which are NOT those multiple alternative tests.  And I am MORE THAN WILLING to conduct the battery draw down test.  Just make it worth my while to go to that trouble.  Here's the condition.  That having completed the test then NO ACADEMIC anywhere - will argue the relevance of our result.  You see.  I'm tired of the multiple alternative tests that you want us to engage in to simply 'while away my time'.  It needs to be a conclusive test - like the battery draw down test that Schubert proposed - and Magsy.  And you SURELY know what our conditions are to doing that test?  They're a REASONABLE minimum requirement to engage at all. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 02:06:54 PM
And lest that answer to Schubert is now off focus - here it is again.
R.
Hi Schubert,
In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing,
Interestingly - it sort of performs as Poynty claimed it would - that there is ALWAYS a path for the battery through either Q1 or Q2's gate to source.  That's where the diagram errs - or as Poynty puts it - 'errors'.  Q2 has no source leg for the discharge except through Q1's Gate.  And Q1's gate has an applied negative signal that would repel any discharge from the battery.  Can you model that too Schubert?  It would be most interesting - but calls for an 'unconventional' MOSFET diagram.  I'll post the schematic again.  Q2 is on the left Q1 on the right.
seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?
No.  It's only required that there's a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of Q1.  It works fine to generate that oscillation.  Which is extraordinary - because under these conditions - ie with the use of just one FET with ONLY an applied negative signal - then the battery is unarguably NOT delivering any energy.  The question then is HOW does the positive half of each oscillation develop?
In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...
EXACTLY.  Which is why we claim an anomaly.  We get MORE energy returned to the supply than delivered.  AND we've got some pretty hefty heat signatures over the workstation - RL1.
So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?
I'm well aware of Bedini's claims.  Our's is ONLY different in that we've got this on a solid state system - with heat dissipated rather than motors.  It seems that the 'recharge' to the battery is still the same.  Not sure because I've never tested this on motors.
1) Take two same and charged battery.2) Running one circuit directly...3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!6) If not, time to try another things...7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...8 ) END.
This is PRECISELY the battery draw down test that I keep proposing to Poynty.  I'll do this gladly.  But I would need to know that I'm not wasting my time when I run this test.  The last thing any of us want is another DEBATE.  It needs to be acknowledged that this will be FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  And to get it there - we'd need the test parameters and protocols defined by an academic expert.  Poynty et al do not have the required expertise - unfortunately.  Not that they're not experts.  They possibly are.  But they're not experts in Power Engineering - which is what's required to get these results acknowledged.   

Let me know if you can vary that design against this diagram that I'm attaching Schubert.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 04, 2012, 02:36:07 PM
Just one question why applying a negative signal to Q1 !?
Sorry but I don't understand NMOSFET require a POSITIVE voltage to activate it (Generally +5 V)...
A negative voltage doesn't activate it !!!


For the test that I have proposed, I will support your claims when the battery will survive  significantly  the other battery...
The significantly (two times, three times, ten times ? ) must be determined before the test.
Be sure that batteries are the same and equally charged, a test like this can be easily falsified...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 02:44:26 PM
Just one question why applying a negative signal to Q1 !?Sorry but I don't understand NMOSFET require a POSITIVE voltage to activate it (Generally +5 V)...A negative voltage doesn't activate it !!!
WE KNOW THIS Schubert.  We put this 'Q-array' together by accident.  They were intended to be paralleled.  Purely due to my own stupidity - I got them attached 'wrongly'.  But - we were all SURPRISED at the result.  And there is no conventional explanation.  Can you do a sim on this 'alternate' config?  If so - PLEASE.  I'd love to see your result.

For the test that I have proposed, I will support your claims when the battery will survive  significantly  the other battery...The significantly (two times, three times, ten times ? ) must be determined before the test. Be sure that batteries are the same and equally charged, a test like this can be easily falsified...
I'll detailed my own proposed parameters for these tests when we've got the engagement of some experts - as mentioned.

Thanks for those efforts on your sim - Schubert.  Much appreciated.  Let me know if you can change the MOSFET config - or simply use the one with a continually applied negative signal.  I'd be most interested in the result.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 04, 2012, 06:07:15 PM
Ah Damn, the forum eaten my message again, look like they are some bug out there...



Quote
WE KNOW THIS Schubert.  We put this 'Q-array' together by accident.  They were intended to be paralleled.  Purely due to my own stupidity - I got them attached 'wrongly'.  But - we were all SURPRISED at the result.  And there is no conventional explanation.  Can you do a sim on this 'alternate' config?  If so - PLEASE.  I'd love to see your result.



So, it was just an error...


Quote
I'll detailed my own proposed parameters for these tests when we've got the engagement of some experts - as mentioned.


Ok, I wait for the result, maybe also for measuring the temp with a "laser probe" if you can find one     ...


Quote
Thanks for those efforts on your sim - Schubert.  Much appreciated.  Let me know if you can change the MOSFET config - or simply use the one with a continually applied negative signal.  I'd be most interested in the result.


Thank you, but let me clarify this:


1) So I continue to pulse Q1 normally.
2) The negative voltage is applied to Q2: it's the negative voltage of the FG or the battery ?
3) The input signal is an AC type or a pulsed DC.
4) I have tested my sim with a AC type because with the pulsed DC it return me a bug (Q2 is the cause of the bug of course).


SRM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 06:32:55 PM
Sorry Schubert,  I missed this. 

1) So I continue to pulse Q1 normally.
It works - experimentally - when we apply a continual negative pulse at Q1.  NO Q2 REQUIRED. 

3) The input signal is an AC type or a pulsed DC.4) I have tested my sim with a AC type because with the pulsed DC it return me a bug (Q2 is the cause of the bug of course).

Maybe just try it with a continual negative at the gate of Q1?  It works experimentally.  Just a thought.

Thanks again Schubert.
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 04, 2012, 07:21:41 PM
Removed Q2 and negative pulsed Q1: as expected it does nothing...


Source code:



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 1.199999758805723E-7
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 -2.6 -2.5 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
o 14 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 16 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 2 -1
o 16 64 0 35 10.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1


Don't know in real world mode what happen. Here I can't say something since I haven't tested (and I have over other work currently cannot test... )


SRM.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 04, 2012, 07:27:39 PM
See, the thing is SRB,

You and I (and most everyone else) knows that Q1 can not be active with a negative voltage applied to its Gate, but Rosemary thinks it is. She is STUCK on this error in her thinking and knowledge. How could anyone take her seriously about her claim when she clearly does not understand how the circuit works?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 07:27:56 PM
Thanks Schubert,

Well.  It goes to show that something's missing from the software in those sims.  It works fine in the real world.  LOL.  I'll ask someone to do that 'click download' thing and take a look at in the morning.

All very interesting.  I seem to remember that Poynty can get this to oscillate on his Pspice software.  Not sure though.   I know he gets it to work with the Q1- Q2 array number.  And we've got lots of sims on that config. 

In any event.  Many thanks Schubert.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 04, 2012, 07:32:53 PM
See, the thing is SRB,

You and I (and most everyone else) knows that Q1 can not be active with a negative voltage applied to its Gate, but Rosemary thinks it is. She is STUCK on this error in her thinking and knowledge. How could anyone take her seriously about her claim when she clearly does not understand how the circuit works?
Poynty Point - can I impose on you to just hold back on your propagandising for the moment and show Schubert your sims.  Not your results.  Just your oscillation.

Then you can get back to these rather tedious references to my poor abilities.  It seems to give you some kind of relief - and it does me no harm - so I've no objection.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 04, 2012, 07:58:58 PM
SRB is inquiring about and discussing Q1 and the issue of whether it can be active or not with a negative Gate voltage.

The way this is supposed to work Rosemary, is I inform SRB how it actually works (which happens to confirm his findings), then YOU try to defend YOUR awkward position on the matter.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 04, 2012, 09:28:19 PM
Or maybe it was just the revers: a P channel, which is activated by a  -5 Volts...
P and N are nearly indistinguishable physically... They are all TO3 or TO220 look alike...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 04, 2012, 09:43:37 PM
Removed Q2 and negative pulsed Q1: as expected it does nothing...


Source code:



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 1.199999758805723E-7
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 -2.6 -2.5 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
o 14 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 16 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 2 -1
o 16 64 0 35 10.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1


Don't know in real world mode what happen. Here I can't say something since I haven't tested (and I have over other work currently cannot test... )


SRM.

Try this not sure if its correct I just changed the trigger a bit-

circuit (http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+1.5642631884188172+50+5.0+50%0Aw+208+144+208+96+0%0Aw+208+96+256+96+0%0Ar+256+96+304+96+0+20.0%0Al+304+96+384+96+0+0.1+0.469532782650013%0Aw+384+96+464+96+0%0Aw+464+96+464+144+0%0Af+432+176+464+176+0+1.5%0Aw+464+144+464+160+0%0Aw+464+192+464+256+0%0Aw+464+256+464+304+0%0Aw+464+304+464+368+0%0Aw+464+368+208+368+0%0Aw+208+368+208+272+0%0Ar+208+272+208+192+0+0.1%0Av+208+192+208+144+0+0+40.0+12.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0AR+432+176+352+176+0+5+40.0+-1.5+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Ao+14+64+1+291+10.0+9.765625E-5+0+-1%0Ao+2+64+1+291+5.0+9.765625E-5+1+-1%0Ao+3+64+1+35+2.5+9.765625E-5+2+-1%0Ao+15+64+0+35+10.0+9.765625E-5+3+-1%0A)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 04, 2012, 11:04:24 PM
Or maybe it was just the revers: a P channel, which is activated by a  -5 Volts...
P and N are nearly indistinguishable physically... They are all TO3 or TO220 look alike...

Schubert, she's definitely using a N-channel MOSFET. P/N is IRFPG50. She just hasn't got a clue how they work, that's all.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 05, 2012, 04:50:06 AM
Hello Poynty Point,

Delighted to see your 'presumption of authority' on all matters related to our technology.  By the way - (BTW)  8) :o   How goes it with that 'test' that you promised us?  I've just read through a sad liturgy on the annihilation of 'cold fusion' led by a certain Dr Vest.  It seems he had a 'vested interest' and I'm concerned that you and he share much in common.  If I can find it I'll post a link.  He too led the 'pack' against allowing any kind of respectable reference to a new and emerging technology.  The co-incidence goes further.  But I'll spare our three readers further reference.  LOL.  It may otherwise seem that I'm alerting them to some kind of an agenda.  And that would not be politic.

Now regarding this...
SRB is inquiring about and discussing Q1 and the issue of whether it can be active or not with a negative Gate voltage.

The way this is supposed to work Rosemary, is I inform SRB how it actually works (which happens to confirm his findings), then YOU try to defend YOUR awkward position on the matter.

I have nothing to defend other than experimental evidence.  And, as you know, experimental evidence always TRUMPS 'allegation' and 'presumption'.  Thank God.  Else science would be corrupted by all kinds of fraudulent claims.  Which brings me back to our Poynt.  Were these schematics and waveforms 'fruadulent'?  Surely not?  I'll attach as much of it as I can that our members can - perhaps - try this out for themselves.  It may be of interest. 

Kindest regards Poynty Point,
May the breeze blow softly at your back....

Rosie Posie.

PS (post script) I'll do the attachments in the next post.   :-\ 8)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 05, 2012, 05:06:58 AM
This if for Schubert and, possibly, Flux It - if you're interested. 

Here are some of those pictures that Poynty posted in my previously 'locked thread'.  Can't remember which because there seems to have been so many of them.  In any event I had a couple of downloads on file.  Here they are.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

And Flux It.  Thanks for giving me that 'link'.   :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 05, 2012, 05:56:37 AM
And guys,

Here's another schematic that may be of assistance.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 05, 2012, 10:04:50 AM
Those circuit are totally different from the one posted before, look like the second in this page are correct Mosfet positively biased can pulse your inductor in a normal way...
In the first look like the gate is controlled an inductor just like a Bedini...
But the -5 Volts generator still bother me, it look like the + side is connected to ground side of the circuit but the polarity is reversed, look like you have a -5 Volts at the ground side and a 0 Volts a the + side...
Do you try a split the positive config ?
But the split the positive is more like putting for example two + side of battery facing each other:
For example a "Bedini" radiant config will be - //////+ > -//////+ > +//////-
Positive split at the two last batteries !
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 05, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
Those circuit are totally different from the one posted before, look like the second in this page are correct Mosfet positively biased can pulse your inductor in a normal way...
In the first look like the gate is controlled an inductor just like a Bedini...
But the -5 Volts generator still bother me, it look like the + side is connected to ground side of the circuit but the polarity is reversed, look like you have a -5 Volts at the ground side and a 0 Volts a the + side...
Do you try a split the positive config ?
But the split the positive is more like putting for example two + side of battery facing each other:
For example a "Bedini" radiant config will be - //////+ > -//////+ > +//////-
Positive split at the two last batteries !

Hello Schubert.  I need to you check those circuits again.  You'll see that they're not standard.  Just check the MOSFET config.  I'll post the schematic again on the actual arrangement of those transistors.  That's where the magic is.  My email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za.  Send me your email and I'll forward you our papers.  Then you'll understand the whole thing better.  You're missing the significance of that Q-array - which is Q1 Drain to Q2 Drain.  Q1 Source to Q2 Gate.  Q2 Source to Q1 Gate.  Pointy was the first to get this simulated.  But we've got loads of sim examples - and they all have that negative wattage anomaly.  The circuit is per our schematic.  If you look closely you'll see that the Q2 Source goes nowhere - other than to the ground of the signal probe.

But let me see if I can find that diagram that I did on the MOSFET connections.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I'm afraid they're both rather faint.  Hopefully you can read them.  And don't bother to read the 'blurb'.  It's just something I wrote to try and clarify the same thing - for someone else.  Sorry Schubert - but that's the best I can manage.  I've lost another one that I did which is marginally easier to see.

ADDED.  I'm taking out these two of mine because I know they're barely readable.  And it just takes up space.  Thanks again Groundloop.

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 05, 2012, 11:51:48 AM
Better contrast.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 05, 2012, 12:15:23 PM
Better contrast.

Groundloop - you're an angel.  Thanks for that.  Even I can read it now.  Golly.

Come to think of it - that schema may have been yours and not Poynty's.  Sorry if I should have given you the credit.  I know you were among the first to spot the error in our earlier report on this.

Thanks Groundloop.  You're always there.  And it's always a comfort.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 05, 2012, 03:13:52 PM
The schematic (brown background) is mine. This was not your circuit per se; it was a rendition that eliminated the FG. I was reducing your circuit down to its most basic form, and that was the last step. The FG was removed and therefore the circuit oscillates continuously rather than in burst mode. The second schematic is from your crew I believe when they simulated the circuit.

I think only one person discovered your "error" before you actually revealed it, and it was "you know who".

Regarding my test, yes coming along nicely. Batteries are still charging. They are being charged one at a time, and there are 10 total. I want 5  or 6 good batteries to start.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 06, 2012, 02:11:42 AM
The schematic (brown background) is mine. This was not your circuit per se; it was a rendition that eliminated the FG. I was reducing your circuit down to its most basic form, and that was the last step. The FG was removed and therefore the circuit oscillates continuously rather than in burst mode. The second schematic is from your crew I believe when they simulated the circuit.

I think only one person discovered your "error" before you actually revealed it, and it was "you know who".

Regarding my test, yes coming along nicely. Batteries are still charging. They are being charged one at a time, and there are 10 total. I want 5  or 6 good batteries to start.

Hello Poynty Point. 

I'm rather puzzled that you didn't or don't show Schubert - and anyone else who may be interested - more on your sims?  Golly Poynty.  Any more of this and we'll all think that you're NOT doing your best to progress this technology.  Whatever next?  Anyway.  It's probably as well that the guys do their own thing here.  They may come out with some relevant insights.  Which would be much appreciated. We're all trying to find some answers.

Now.  Poynty Point.  About your battery tests.  I think I must put this down - for the record - lest you get carried away with your 'presumption of authority'.   The 'settings' for that switch - are CRUCIAL.  Too much to the left, too much to the right - too much 'on', too much 'off' - fractionally too much resonance, too little - ALL make an ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE to the measured benefit.   Which is why the results are more dependable on a function generator to drive the 'switch'.  It holds its setting better.  And it has a wider range of options.  THEN. Short of doing a whole load of detailed spreadsheet analysis on each setting - there's no 'quick' guide to that negative wattage value.  UNLESS you use a more sophisticated oscilloscope.  I would strongly recommend that you try and get one - even if you do this on loan - as we do.  It doesn't compute amperage  - OBVIOUSLY - as it would first need to know the value of the shunt resistor.  It only reads the voltage across that resistor.  But a product of this and the battery voltage is a 'quick guide'.  And IF this results in a negative product - then you can rest easy that the setting's good.  And then you can do your own spreadsheet analysis and do the required adjustments related to the impedance at whatever frequency.  But whichever way you then cut it - you'll still have that curious anomaly of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.    And as we all know by now.  That negative wattage has absolutely no MEANING.  It's something that has not been fully explored by our learned and revered.

And again.  THAT negative wattage number - is the ENTIRE focus of both the first and the second part of our two-part paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 06, 2012, 02:41:55 AM
And guys,

Just in case it's not clear WHY this negative wattage number is significant - it's this.  We apply standard measurement protocols to the amount of energy delivered by the battery against the amount of energy returned to the battery.  The delivered energy is represented as a positive value as the amperage flow is greater than zero.  The 'returned' energy is represented as a negative value as the amperage flow is less than zero.  The two values are then summed.  IF Kirchhoff's rulings are RIGHT - then we should NEVER get a result that is anything less than 1.  In other words the amount of energy delivered will ALWAYS exceed the amount of energy returned.  And under ideal circumstances we should be able to PRECISELY relate that difference to the amount of energy that is dissipated - as heat or motion or both - over the circuit components.  What should NEVER happen is that the amount of energy returned exceeds the amount of energy delivered.

The minute this is evident - then we're into a new ballpark.  It means this.  Either our measurement protocols are essentially FLAWED.  Or it means that there's an alternate supply of energy on the circuit.  There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Now.  There are those of you who read here who will recall that we've done this test where we measured 'apparent' gains resulting in some value greater than Unity.  But until we configured this circuit we've NEVER seen values that actually EXCEED the amount of energy first delivered.  And that's why this new generation of our switching circuit is so very intriguing.  And why it's so deserving of 'review'.

And of interest.  I've been to some pains to explain that we've FOUND NOTHING NEW.  And indeed we haven't.  This result is 'required' by those Dark Energy enthusiasts who have measured a 'binding' force in our galaxies.  And it's required by our string theorists who have required an all pervasive universal force that exceeds our known forces.  The only reason that this has remained hidden for so long  is because no-one before looked for that evidence in an electric application.  And this was largely due to the expectations which relied on Kirchhoff's assumptions.  Fortunately I was that 'unschooled' that I actually saw some relevance in testing this.  And that's because our own little thesis entirely supports our Dark Energy theorists.  And this should sit well with the most of you.  Because it conforms to those insights by Tesla and I think we're all Tesla enthusiasts here.

I hope that makes the relevance of all this clearer.  Because - IF INDEED - there is this 'negative wattage' then it also means that we're grossly UNDERUSING the potentials in the delivery of electric energy.   And that way - we can - hopefully - do better.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 06, 2012, 04:12:15 AM
I'm fairly confident I'll be able to obtain a negative battery wattage, right "out of the box".

I got the negative wattage with the simulation, so I see no reason I won't with the actual build.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 06, 2012, 07:29:25 AM
My Dear Poynty Point.

What you need to do is make ALL your sim information available.  Else no-one will ever give any credibility to any of your findings ever again.  Surely you KNOW THIS?  If you were in the LEAST bit interested in promoting studies in over unity - then you should be falling over your feet in your anxiety to explain how this simulation is done.  Even if it's simply to explore that strange oscillation.  And?  Strangely you're not?  In fact you're ACTIVELY promoting their disengagement?  Why is that?

You've proposed multiple reasons why the oscillation is happening at all.  This includes incorrect probe positions - the fact that a battery applies a negative current flow when it discharges it energy - the fact that the battery can discharge its energy straight across the gate of a MOSFET and bypass it's own source.  Alternatively that it can run a course right through the ground terminal and into the signal probe and across an applied negative signal.  You've proposed that our measurements are erroneous as they apply to the position of the current sensing resistor - to the miscalculation of the applied impedance value - and even to the fact that those resistors have inductance associated with them. Which is correct - by the way (BTW) BUT not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to our results.  You've suggested that the battery can discharge its energy in a 'one step' 'two step' dance step - as it chooses which MOSFET gate to use.  But you stopped that argument short of explaining why then the waveform was not 'purely positive'.  You've relied on arguments related to my ignorance, duplicity, stupidity, antiquity, vacuity, lunacy and general absurdity.  You've accused our collaborators variously of being 'morons' or untrained in matters scientific - or not existing at all - as they WISELY defer from posting on these forums.  And all this while you seriously proposed that we re-write our standard model in line with that rather absurd 'paper' that you ventured where your counterarguments were confined to a poor little academic who was relegated to the sidelines and only allowed to express astonishment at your revisionary visions.   Not to mention your heavy subscription to my 'hate blog' where you state what you like freed from all editorial constraints unless they're either 'positive' or 'on track'. 

You relied on that sim evidence to disprove EVERYTHING.  The problem with all sims is that its an easy path for the most of you trained in electronics to quickly test all this - as Flux It explained.  Now.  Once that starts on forum - as I'm well aware of it happening 'off' forum - then more and more people will start duplicating that OSCILLATION that you and your 'friends' advised us had no relevance.

And you and I both know that there is no explanation within the standard model for that waveform.  But it's fully explained with a minor extension to Faraday's Lines of Force.  Which is what we propose.  For some reason ANY THEORY is preferred over this?  I wonder why that it?  Could it be that it will actually ASSIST in this DRIVE to energy efficiency?  Maybe?  GOLLY.

So.  WHY POYNTY POINT are you on the wrong side of this drive of ours?

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 06, 2012, 08:02:21 AM
And may I add this.  A certain Dr Vest relied on an MIT replication of cold fusion to DISPROVE COLD FUSION.  He thereby managed to endorse legislation that prevented ANY PATENTS CLAIMING ANYTHING AT ALL RELATED TO COLD FUSION.  Which is why they invented various alternate terms including Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.  He managed to prevent this being developed in America.  Unfortunately he did NOT manage to prevent its development elsewhere. 

There's a moral to this Poynty Point.  I trust you see it.  DISPROOF NEVER CUTS IT.  When there's new evidence - and when the 'cat's out the bag' so to speak - then there will ALWAYS be further and further testing. Thank God.  You cannot put a LID on experimental evidence and experimental claims.  And it only needs ONE SINCERE REPLICATION - to PROVE ANYTHING AT ALL - in science.  The best you can rely on is to continue to discredit me.  And I welcome it.  The more so as your OVER reliance on this rather starts to beg the question. 

Regards,
Rosemary 
edited you're to 'your'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 06, 2012, 02:04:53 PM
For the following reasons, I don't see the need to post all my simulations again:

1) They've been posted in this thread to some degree, and in your "demonstration" thread also on this forum. There is also a document posted that goes through the measurement analysis. So it's all here already.

2) No one here is asking for these simulation posts, except you. And you've already seen them all.

I'm sure the 3 readers here are much more keen on seeing my actual test results, as they'll be much more convincing than the simulation.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 06, 2012, 03:12:56 PM
I would love to see test results, and the simulation was much more of a visualization tool, as I am not implying any accuracy of its results. But the simplicity of the simulator makes an excellent design tool that anyone can use to post a circuit example. Personally looking back to find circuits and test results in this topic is like watching a boxing match in slo mo ;)

Not taking any sides, I just think there should be more solid information. Will you be using a 555 in your tests?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 06, 2012, 05:05:24 PM
I would love to see test results, and the simulation was much more of a visualization tool, as I am not implying any accuracy of its results. But the simplicity of the simulator makes an excellent design tool that anyone can use to post a circuit example. Personally looking back to find circuits and test results in this topic is like watching a boxing match in slo mo ;)

Not taking any sides, I just think there should be more solid information. Will you be using a 555 in your tests?

Flux It.  The simulation is EXTRAORDINARY.  Simply because it is able to compute a negative wattage - which, as explained, is anomalous - at its least.  But what is really odd is that the sim can allow for that 'above ground' voltage.  From what I saw of Schubert's sim - it gives a result that was more or less predicted by Poynty.  However, Poynt's own sims are able to replicate that waveform.  Either the sim is assuming a discharge from the battery supply - or it's allowing 'logically' for the development of CEMF to run both halves of each oscillation waveform.  If the former - then there SHOULD be a path from the battery supply to allow for that positive half.  And we none of us can find that path.  It is most certainly NOT a conventional path through the Gate at Q2 - because if it was - then it would need to bypass the Q2 source leg.  And if it's allowing for the path from CEMF to run both halves of the oscillation then the question is 'how does this compute with the standard model?'.  Because CEMF  should only result from 'stored energy' - at best. 

Also.  If we simply parallel the transistors - in the usual way - then we don't get the oscillation at all.  My own guess is that the sim software simply applies inductive laws which kick in when each oscillation reaches its peak.  Which means that they've only used INDUCTIVE LAWS.  And that still leaves one with the need to resolve the polarity.  It's not straight forward.

In any event.  Poynty and others have got my paper.  If you want 'results' I'll be glad to forward this to you.  Just email me or PM me with your email address and I'll forward them.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 06, 2012, 05:09:32 PM
For the following reasons, I don't see the need to post all my simulations again:

1) They've been posted in this thread to some degree, and in your "demonstration" thread also on this forum. There is also a document posted that goes through the measurement analysis. So it's all here already.

2) No one here is asking for these simulation posts, except you. And you've already seen them all.

I'm sure the 3 readers here are much more keen on seeing my actual test results, as they'll be much more convincing than the simulation.
Is Schubert 'no-one'?  You saw him trying to put this together - unsolicited.  You know he would not have bothered if he was aware of your earlier efforts.  So?  Surely the trick is to rally?  Poynty Point?

Perhaps if you could just provide a link to that 'document of denial' - it would be something.  Then anyone at all can decide whether or not to look into this any more deeply.  It would be appreciated - I'm sure.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Sorry - I put in the wrong reference. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 06, 2012, 10:39:00 PM
Guys - apologies for repeating this post but there's an important emphasis on this paragraph.
And guys,

Just in case it's not clear WHY this negative wattage number is significant - it's this.  We apply standard measurement protocols to the amount of energy delivered by the battery against the amount of energy returned to the battery.  The delivered energy is represented as a positive value as the amperage flow is greater than zero.  The 'returned' energy is represented as a negative value as the amperage flow is less than zero.  The two values are then summed.  IF Kirchhoff's rulings are RIGHT - then we should NEVER get a result that is anything less than 1.  In other words the amount of energy delivered will ALWAYS exceed the amount of energy returned.  And under ideal circumstances we should be able to PRECISELY relate that difference to the amount of energy that is dissipated - as heat or motion or both - over the circuit components.  What should NEVER happen is that the amount of energy returned exceeds the amount of energy delivered.

The minute this is evident - then we're into a new ballpark.  It means this.  Either our STANDARD measurement protocols are essentially FLAWED.  Or it means that there's an alternate supply of energy on the circuit.  There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Now.  There are those of you who read here who will recall that we've done this test where we measured 'apparent' gains resulting in some value greater than Unity.  But until we configured this circuit we've NEVER seen values that the energy returned actually EXCEEDS the amount of energy first delivered.  And that's why this new generation of our switching circuit is so very intriguing.  And why it's so deserving of 'review'.

The amendments are highlighted.  I'm trying to stress the fact that we have NOT made a measurements error.  We've only used standard protocols.  Therefore.  Again.  Here's the situation.  Our standard measurement protocols - all those sums related to conventional power analysis MUST EITHER BE FLAWED  -  OR -  there's an alternate energy supply source.  And it's the existence of an alternate energy source that's the theme of the 2nd part of our two-part paper.  And that alternate energy source is proposed to be in a field that is extraneous to the atom - but is responsible for binding all coalesced matter.  In other words - among other things - it's also a 'binding' force.   

Regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 07, 2012, 04:41:15 AM
Guys - apologies for repeating this post but there's an important emphasis on this paragraph.
The amendments are highlighted.  I'm trying to stress the fact that we have NOT made a measurements error.  We've only used standard protocols.  Therefore.  Again.  Here's the situation.  Our standard measurement protocols - all those sums related to conventional power analysis MUST EITHER BE FLAWED  -  OR -  there's an alternate energy supply source.  And it's the existence of an alternate energy source that's the theme of the 2nd part of our two-part paper.  And that alternate energy source is proposed to be in a field that is extraneous to the atom - but is responsible for binding all coalesced matter.  In other words - among other things - it's also a 'binding' force.   

Regards,
Rosemary
Yes, Rosemary, your measurements are flawed... or rather, your understanding of what your are measuring and what to do with the measurements is flawed.

I'll keep on posting this until you deal with it. Either tell us it's correct, or it's wrong. If it's wrong, correct it and explain what's wrong.

Quote
[cite] Rosemary Ainslie[/cite]NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

For the other two readers: Note that this calculation contains Rosemary's ENTIRE CLAIM OF EXCESS BATTERY LIFETIME AND RECHARGING within it, in addition to including at least two major conceptual errors involving power calculations.  A Joule is NOT a "watt per second" and until you realize that, and what it means, you are ALWAYS going to get the wrong answers, Rosie dear.

DO THE MATH.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 07, 2012, 06:37:18 AM
Guys,

LOL - I don't think any of us can accuse TK of 'under'... scoring a poynt or two.  I"m afraid that this lonely little objection of his is likely to continue - ad nausea.  Clearly Harti's happy to see his contributions.  And that could possibly be because Harti is also rather hoping that TK will flame this thread to death.  In any event - TK has obviously been given permission to do his damnedest - and there's nothing we can do about it.  The only thing that I know - for a certainty - is that if I actually start answering TK then we'll be dragged into detours and back roads - that the purpose of this thread will be forever bypassed.  LOST.  And that would be a shame. 

There's an unspoken editorial bias that results in a marked diminution of the wider interest in any forum.  It intrigues me that this bias has now been detected on another two forums that are losing their readership at an alarming rate.  I'm sure Harti checks his stats.  So do we.  I would suggest that general interest is also getting more and more alert to some agenda that allows a total breach of forum guidelines in 'special cases'.  When that happens, regardless of the objectives of either forum - the readers feel insulted.  One expects a certain 'objectivity' to be allowed.  For those of them that read this - then take note.  There are only two threads on this forum that unequivocally show proof of over unity.  Fortunately, thus far - this is the only one that is SERIOUSLY attacked.  But that both threads are even tolerated speaks to a more balanced approach which is always a comfort for our readers. One hopes that the 'balance' will be maintained.  Neither subject are allowed elsewhere.  I can't help but wonder why.  It's intriguing.

Regards,
Rosemary

Yes, Rosemary, your measurements are flawed... or rather, your understanding of what your are measuring and what to do with the measurements is flawed.

I'll keep on posting this until you deal with it. Either tell us it's correct, or it's wrong. If it's wrong, correct it and explain what's wrong.

For the other two readers: Note that this calculation contains Rosemary's ENTIRE CLAIM OF EXCESS BATTERY LIFETIME AND RECHARGING within it, in addition to including at least two major conceptual errors involving power calculations.  A Joule is NOT a "watt per second" and until you realize that, and what it means, you are ALWAYS going to get the wrong answers, Rosie dear.

DO THE MATH.

As I said.  It's all very intriguing. 
Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 07, 2012, 07:02:07 AM
And guys, at the risk of boring you all to death - perhaps I should remind you what our ACTUAL CLAIM encompasses - lest you're inclined to believe any biased 'representations'.  The claim is fully defined in our papers.  Nothing outside of what is written in those papers applies. 

We have measured proof of INFINITE COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE.  This, by definition, means that there's every evidence of some energy supply source that has not been factored into classical analysis of electrical power delivery.  Not only that - but we have evidence of a waveform that is not explicable in terms of the standard model - in any context at all.  This requires a revision of our measurement protocols.  And it requires a revision of the properties of current flow that may not be entirely in line with conventional assumptions.

IF our claim also related to the performance of batteries - then we'd have to evaluate their chemical performance exclusively.  That is outside the scope of the authors' expertise.  And therefore battery draw down rates are NOT a part of our 'official' or 'written 'claims'.  However, since this is pertinent to the evaluation of efficiency - we are MORE THAN HAPPY to do any test required to evaluate this as well - with the caveat that such tests will be considered conclusive.  We anticipate a marked improvement in battery performance over its rating.

Meanwhile - what we're looking at is the potential to deliver significant levels of energy that appears to come from the circuit material exclusively.  This also needs full experimentation and evaluation.  Because IF this proved to be correct, then we have found a 'source' of energy that is highly exploitable.  And this, if anything, is an understatement of its potential.  Which is why I propose that competing interests would see MORE CAUSE to discredit us than even LENR.  Which is also why I run such enormous risk in posting this on Open Source.  And the reason that I continue to do so is because Open Source has the indubitable merit of 'spreading the word'.  This is the more so when the technology and I are both subjected to continual 'attack'.  Because most readers align themselves on one or other side of a confrontation.  And that level of engagement is preferred over indifference.

It's just a pity that one has to deal with polarised opinions.  But if that's the cost - then I'll pay it gladly.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 07, 2012, 07:47:35 AM

Please note to the three of Rosemary's personal readers a post over from http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/7463-dark-energy-new-scienced-rosemary-ainslie.html#post182553

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 With all due respect you have no clue what your talking when it comes to the Rosemary Ainslie OU devices that "CLAIM" a COP> INFINITY ..... a infinite COP do you know what that means ????

Now even a rookie that has a menial education in electronics can see in the diagram illustrations published by Rosemary one huge problem right off the bat if you actually look.
 
 The function generator used to give a square wave pulse in the circuit for operation is connected "DIRECTLY" to the circuit and is inducing voltage and current into the circuit during operation of the device !!!!
 
 The second big problem that Rosemary has made a "CLAIM" not proof of that claim for the obvious reason ..... how can the inventor of a device verify it's operation and "CLAIM" that would be a "INDEPENDENT" person, entity or organization to "VERIFY" the results.
 
 Reproducibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29)
 QUOTE-
 Reproducibility is one component of the precision of a test method. The other component is repeatability which is the degree of agreement of tests or measurements on replicate specimens by the same observer in the same laboratory. Both repeatability and reproducibility are usually reported as a standard deviation. A reproducibility limit is the value below which the difference between two test results obtained under reproducibility conditions may be expected to occur with a probability of approximately 0.95 (95 %).
 
 In summery .... no one on "EARTH" has made any replication of Rosemary's devices in a scientific method that can be verified to operate as she has "CLAIMED". All the data that has been submitted by Rosemary on her "CLAIM" also the operation can not be verified or reproduced with what has been submitted for a scientific replication by anyone not connect to the inventor or Rosemary.
 
 It's sad over several years and 6000 to 7000 of her personal posts in many forums that Rosemary Ainslie (aka witsend and aetherevarising ) at ...
 
 http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/ (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/)      (banned)
 The Naked Scientists Forum - Index (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/)                             (banned)
 Thunderbolts Forum &bull; Index page (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php)                         (banned)
 OverUnity Research - Index (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php)                                        (ran away)
 Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../PHPSESSID/adaec4909e3d44a898383a4078f9564f/wwwRedirect//)    ??? on her way out .....
 
 Rosemary has not been able to prove nothing at all on the "CLAIMS" she has made on all her OU devices.
 
 This is all for a thesis she has cobbled up and has made fictitious devices to substantiate her claim to justify the thesis and is actually "DEMANDING" prize money from several forums based on her personal unproven "CLAIMS".
 
 A SAD DAY FOR THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY AND AN ABSOLUTE INSULT TO THE MANY TRUE EXPERIMENTALIST THAT ACTUALLY DO CREDIBLE AND VERIFIABLE RESEARCH LEADING TO DEVELOPMENT OF POSSIBLE DEVICES WITH "MERIT" NOT JUNK THAT WON'T EVEN BE SUITABLE FOR THE WASTE CAN.
 
 FuzzyTomCat
 :P


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 07, 2012, 10:06:54 AM
 
Quote
It's sad over several years and 6000 to 7000 of her personal posts in many forums that Rosemary Ainslie (aka witsend and aetherevarising )at ...  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/ (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/)      (banned) The Naked Scientists Forum - Index (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/)                             (banned) Thunderbolts Forum &bull; Index page (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php)                         (banned) OverUnity Research - Index (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php)                                        (ran away) Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com (http://www.overunity.com/PHPSESSID/adaec4909e3d44a898383a4078f9564f/wwwRedirect//)     on her way out .....


OMG...  :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 07, 2012, 11:44:17 AM

Guys - Fuzzy's posts are usually monitored.  If Stefan's lifted this it's because he's now given Fuzzy license to flame this thread to death.  He's done this once before and I'm sure that he'll do this again and again.  I think he's decided that neither TK nor Poynty are putting up enough of a fight. 

The ONLY thing that Glen Lettenmaier, aka as Fuzzy Tom Cat, has referenced that has a grain of truth in it is the fact that I have - indeed - been repeatedly banned from Overunity.com and Energetic forum.  I've never even heard of tht Thunderbolts forum but it certainly does look interesting.  Overunity Research in the UK kindly copied my posts from sundry forums when Forum owners threatened to delete them.  That's not happened yet.  And for the record.  The MINUTE I get close to elaborating on the thesis - then there's a 'no holds barred' offer to the trolls and flamers to kill of this topic.  I CANNOT explain this.  I can only communicate my suspicions.  Which I've done at length.

Every single other statement alleged by FUZZY is simply that - ALLEGATION.  Not ONE statement is the truth. Two of those schematics have nothing whatsoever to do with our work.  And a cursory inspection of sundry internet references including Fuzzy's own Scribd file will show that there have, indeed - been replications.  Unless he now denies that that his work was a replication.  In which case he needs to withdraw my paper on this - which he has alleged to Scribd officials was EXCLUSIVELY his OWN work.

I very much doubt that I'll be able to keep on topic.  I'll try this - off and on - but failing which - just know that from hereon Fuzzy's posts will dominate each page and they will get louder and more confrontational as one follows the other.  That's his particular brand of trollmanship.  And know too that Harti has now 'lifted' his monitoring of Fuzzy's posts.  Which means that this all carries Stefan's implicit approval.  In other words Harti is doing his damnedest to silence me.  But this time without seeming to be the culprit.  And rest assured. Stefan is NOT about to require Glen to comply to forum guidelines.  Go figger.  If indeed Fuzzy now manages to get me banned due to this kind of intervention - then perhaps Schubert - you'll better understand why it is that I AM so repeatedly banned from forums.  This is the typical procedure.

God help us all and God help our over unity drive.  Because our trolls are doing a good job of suppression.
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 07, 2012, 11:52:20 AM
And guys, of interest - I carry the unique distinction among all posters that I was actually BANNED from a forum before ever even joining.  That may give you some indication of the level of 'anxiety' our technology seems to solicit.

Golly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 07, 2012, 02:44:26 PM


 With all due respect you have no clue what your talking when it comes to the Rosemary Ainslie OU devices that "CLAIM" a COP> INFINITY ..... a infinite COP do you know what that means ??? ?

 
 FuzzyTomCat
 :P


I don't really understand why you guys keep harassing Rosemary.  She has done a lot of hard work and has probably developed the first overunity device in history.  And with COP of infinity, this is not just slightly over unity but quite an invention.  Just let her work and publish her results in peace.  If you don't like her device, you can make your own, or is this jealousy because you have not developed an over unity device yourself yet?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 07, 2012, 06:10:56 PM

I don't really understand why you guys keep harassing Rosemary.  She has done a lot of hard work and has probably developed the first overunity device in history.  And with COP of infinity, this is not just slightly over unity but quite an invention.  Just let her work and publish her results in peace.  If you don't like her device, you can make your own, or is this jealousy because you have not developed an over unity device yourself yet?

Do you research into the subject that you make comments on, It has been clear for many years that Rosemary circuit is not OU.
Clearly you would say I am wrong. Okay then show us all your working OU replication. I didn't think you could,
nobody credible has been able to do that because all Rosemary has is a claim and nothing but a claim,
it is now legendary as is her stubbornness to face reality.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 07, 2012, 06:29:21 PM
Guys - Fuzzy's posts are usually monitored.  If Stefan's lifted this it's because he's now given Fuzzy license to flame this thread to death.  He's done this once before and I'm sure that he'll do this again and again.  I think he's decided that neither TK nor Poynty are putting up enough of a fight. 


Sorry to the three readers, I'm here to give Rosemary the "PRIZE"  she so deserves and demands ....

No no no .... not one of money, I do not yield to false Over Unity demands!!!!

One of acknowledgement !!!

Rosemary Ainslie has won the most prestigious of all and will be featured this month at the grand opening of http://www.OpenSourceResearchandDevelopment.org this month !!!

She will have her own folder in the Over Unity Scams and Shams !!! Rosemary will have every document in existence from her beginning starting with the four (4) Patent Applications she made as the "INVENTOR" of electronic circuits until the NERD circuit today, including forum postings, e-mail correspondence, Rosemary's self made news articles and Quantum article plus forum postings and blog excerpts.

SO ...... congratulations Rosemary on you having the longest running fraudulent Over Unity scam going for over ten (10) years and the well deserved "PRIZE" you are going to get like it or not you "WON" !!!!

Well all .... don't miss the grand opening of the new NON Profit "Open Source Research and Development" site which includes a 24/7 "LIVE" broadcast feed w/ chat room http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment ( not a forum ) we will be featuring devices from the inventors or producers eventually and hopefully from around the world.


FuzzyTomCat
 :)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 07, 2012, 10:52:51 PM
Do you research into the subject that you make comments on, It has been clear for many years that Rosemary circuit is not OU.
Clearly you would say I am wrong. Okay then show us all your working OU replication. I didn't think you could,
nobody credible has been able to do that because all Rosemary has is a claim and nothing but a claim,
it is now legendary as is her stubbornness to face reality.

Guys when I get powercat, Fuzzy AND TK - on one page - then I've got the 'trolls from hell'.   :'( It seems that Harti has really 'Let loose the dogs of war'.  LOL.  In any event, IF there were any truth in this post of powercat's - then I'm afraid that Fuzzy himself has rather proved the lie.   :o   For those who are NOT aware of the history here - then this is the link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)

You may notice for yourself that this details a REPLICATION of our earlier test.  Confusingly Fuzzy now denies that he replicated anything at all.  But nor is he prepared to withdraw that paper.  Which is all rather irregular.  In any event.  That paper is of interest as it details the 'second generation' so to speak of this technology.  It was an open source effort - which speaks rather sadly of open source efficacy.  I'll not try THAT again.  I've never got to the bottom of Fuzzy's objections.  All I can tell you as a fact is that the paper claims to be a replication of our earlier published test.  And that claim seemingly is endorsed by Fuzzy in as much has he has not withdrawn it.  In any event.  I'm only referencing this that those of you who are NOT familiar with the history - can check out that alternate method of getting to efficiencies..  In other words, the efficacy is also easily proven on a purely 'switched circuit' without the Q-array of the 'third generation' so to speak - of this circuit.  But it does not result in INFINITE COP.  And nor does it go to the heart of the issue as do our final tests of this.  But it most certainly is still very much a replication.  I believe Harvey Gramm - who was responsible for writing one third of that paper - proposed that the entire paper was written by himself and that the test detailed in  it was actually Fuzzy's 'discovery'.  This largely based on the fact that Fuzzy only managed COP>6 and not COP>17 as we did.  And this because, apparently - our earlier paper had some error in it associated with the resistor details.  Ahhhh.  It's all too tedious to repeat.  And the motives of denial - somewhat embarrassingly transparent.

I'm afraid I've been trying to distance myself from that entire event as it reminded me that involvement of forum members in a replication is NOT to expect the involvement of professionals.  Little did I know.  And this particular effort of mine was heavily tarnished by its lack.  But check out the paper.  It's interesting. 

Thanks for your efforts there eatenbyagrue.  I'll see if I can get this thread on track again. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 12:01:54 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

And guys - from where I sit - this seems to indicate that Fuzzy was on 'moderation' until yesterday.  Presumably this was because Fuzzy's inclined to ignore forum guidelines.  Which begs the question.  Which part of which of those last two posts of Fuzzy's comply? 

And the next question is this.  Why is Harti encouraging this level of confrontation?  I wish I knew the answer.  Perhaps, in due course Harti will explain this himself.  I would have thought, on the whole, that any contribution by Fuzzy would, dependably, be somewhat combative - and dependably it would breach any rules of 'decency' at all.  Confusingly Fuzzy is always anxious to advise all and sundry that his 'professionalism' is being called to question.  But its his own posts that prove this lack.  Someone should alert him.  Professionals don't as a rule engage in traducement and slander. 

Anyway.  I think I've now exhausted this complaint.  AGAIN.  I'll try and get back on topic.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 12:32:07 AM
Anyway - moving on.

We're likely to be published as we've been called on to do some minor editing of our paper.  And the collaborators have been asked to present CV's.  This is very promising.  But I'm not sure that I can, therefore, publish our own paper here - until that's been finalised.  But what I can do is print out the appendix in that paper - as that is not the 'meat' of the claim.  And it may assist you all in seeing what it is that we're trying to point to.

I'll do it in a series of posts that - hopefully - won't be interrupted with more of those contributions from our trolls. It's likely to take up a whole lot of pages - but I'll try and keep each post reasonably short.

Here's the first download.

  A.  Magnetic Dipole

            It seems that much is known about the conditions required to sustain a fire or flame, while little is actually understood about its material properties. For instance, it is known that fire requires oxygen in the atmosphere for it to burn, but a nuclear fire, such as in the sun, does not require this. The following simplistic and hypothetical experiment is used to explore the property of fire and, by extension, the material property of the magnetic field.

            Place a pile of wood under a ceramic pot holding iron filings. Then set the wood alight. Flames would heat the ceramic pot and this heat would then transfer to the environment inside that pot. With a required sufficiency, the heat would then melt the filings to form a liquid. This experiment would conclude precisely when the fire extinguishes which, in this theorized example, would also be precisely when the filings will have coalesced into a liquid. Then the ceramic pot would cool and the liquid iron solidify, and in the process of solidifying it would also shrink in volume compared to its liquid state.

            Assume also that, at the beginning of that experiment, a detailed account is made of the number and type of atoms and molecules in the wood, in the ceramic pot and in the iron filings. Then at the end of that experiment all those atoms and molecules associated with that energy exchange during the fire, would still be fully accounted for. For instance, some of the carbon atoms in the wood may have combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. Yet other exotic gas molecules may have escaped. The small volumes of moisture in the wood may be vaporized into steam. But the structure and weight of the ceramic pot would remain substantially the same except that it may show evidence of cracking and heat fatigue. The amount of the iron would match its quantity as filings. And the most of the carbon atoms in the wood would be there in the loose ash condition of its burnt out state.
         
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 12:33:41 AM
2/... Which begs the question, what actually has changed as a result of that fire if the atoms themselves remain inviolate? And the answer is evident in the wood that will have lost its bound condition. Conversely, the previously unbound condition of the iron filings would have become bound. And other than a few escaping gas atoms and molecules, all those atoms involved in and associated with that fire, may not only be entirely accounted for, but they would and do remain substantially unchanged. The actual atoms comprising all parts of that experiment and its experimental apparatus remain exactly as they were prior to their exposure to those flames. It is only their bound condition that would have been altered.

           In as much as the atoms are known to remain unchanged as a result of the fire, then the material source of fire may have little, if anything, to do with an interaction between those atoms. The fire itself may have a material cause that is extraneous to the atomic material from its source. If so, and as it results in an unbinding in that transfer of its heat from the material of the wood to a binding of the material of the filings then, what is actually being transferred in that exchange of energy, may be that binding material. By extension, therefore, this binding material may also be the material property of that flame. Which suggests that three-dimensional bound structures, be they liquid, solid, or molecular, may be bound by something that is extraneous to the atom.           

           It is this ‘something’, this binding material, which is here proposed to be the hidden material construction that not only is responsible for binding matter into its identifiable structures, but it may also be the foundational construction behind all the forces. A magnetic field model identifies this binding field as a single discrete, one-dimensional closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles structured as a Line of Force (Fig 5). And this precise one-dimensional field is identified as the fundamental structure upon which all the Lines of Force are developed because it is, in fact, all that is needed. It is the essential and profoundly elementary construction with the required potential to interact with the three valence conditions of atomic charge. For ease of reference this orbiting string of dipoles will be called a ‘binding field’
                 
           The assumption is made that these binding fields are magnetic and that they are constrained to only interact with other magnetic fields. They obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. And this actual atomic binding could, therefore, be managed by an orbit of these strings, which can be seen, in the mind’s eye, as a small cog, (the binding field), interacting with the boundary of a bigger cog, (the atom’s outer energy levels). Both fields are proposed to comprise Lines of Force. And, being closed strings, then the charge of both the atom’s energy levels and the binding fields are perfectly balanced and thereby rendered undetectable. The difference in these two fields is proposed to be only that of size. The atomic energy levels are proposed to be more complex, two-dimensional magnetic Lines of Force, having length and breadth.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 12:34:33 AM
3/...           
 
           But the question remains. Why are these fields undetectable? And the proposed answer to this is that they are indeed detectable. They are seen every time we light a fire. In effect, flame itself is proposed to be the hot material property of magnetic dipoles that have moved out of their field condition as a coherent Line of Force into a chaotic imbalanced mass of conflicting raw charge. As there is also a proposed and immutable imperative for these dipoles to structure themselves into an orderly field then they needs must search out material in their immediate environment to reassemble into those discrete and structured fields. In effect, they are looking for something to ‘bind’. And having found the required disassociated atoms or molecules they can then transfer through space to reassemble into those discrete packages of their coherent field condition, by binding disassociated atomic material.           
           
           A variation of this ‘binding’ and ‘unbinding’ is proposed to be the motor that drives the electromotive force. But to explain this first requires a close analysis of the closed Line of Force. One half of each of those closed strings will oppose the other half. And if they orbit, then one half of every orbit will still oppose the other half. The orbit itself is a composite of a potential bi-directional path through space. And whether the orbit is clockwise or a counter-clockwise, then whole of the field would be neutral. In effect, each Line of Force, whether or not it is orbiting, would be balanced by its own innate structure, which would render the binding field neutral. Therefore, in summary, the field would essentially comprise the sum of two opposite potential spins and therefore, two opposite charges. Each part of each field would be charged, determined by the alignment and/or the justification of those magnetic dipoles. Yet the field itself would be neutral.           
         
           Current flow, on the other hand, is proposed to be the dynamic condition of voltage that comprises open strings. And its movement through the circuit is led by a single justification or direction or charge. This is here further proposed to be either the negative or positive half of each dipole leading the string that also leads the current. See figures 7, 9 & 10. And unlike the proposed binding fields, current is known to be mono directional therefore it only has one charge. The binding fields would be located in that circuit material that is presenting a path for the flow of current. Therefore when current flows through the circuit material it would repel that half of each of those binding fields in its path that present a ‘like’ charge. And this force of repulsion is then proposed to break the symmetry of that orbit of these binding fields.           
           
           Broken Lines of Force would also be open Lines of Force. And unlike their closed condition, open Lines of force have an identifiable charge. In terms of the Laws of Charge, like charges repel. So one half of that field would, of necessity, be repelled by the current charge. And having been repelled it would also then restructure as an open field outside that circuit material, and would be measured as voltage. This is proposed to be the source of the voltage that results from EMF.           
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 12:35:28 AM
4/...         

           The remaining half of those Lines of Force, are now no longer able to attach or to orbit. These fields remain within the structure of the circuit material. But they have lost that interaction with the atom’s valence energy levels, which thereby become unbound. It is proposed that these broken Lines of Force then tumble out of their coherent field condition and, like the sparks in the flame, they get bigger and hotter as more and more of these fields move into this shared state of chaos. These broken strings then lose their orbital momentum. This unbinding, or unbundling of the field string structure, represents a chaotic condition where the level of binding of the circuit material becomes compromised. The early evidence of this is that the circuit material itself expands to accommodate the increased volume of these, now big, hot and slow, magnetic dipoles. So it is that the magnetic dipoles themselves are here proposed to be the source of heat, which is exploited in electrical applications.             
     
           The magnetic field model referenced hereunder, has proposed that these Lines of Force comprise magnetic dipoles. It further proposes that all particles are composites of these tachyons. And as the model is able to resolve the mass/size ratios of the proton to the electron, it may thereby constitute some proof of postulate. The objective of this appendix is to summarize these concepts relating to the electromotive force. It is stressed, however, that there is no material departure of these concepts to mainstream physics other than in the proposal of a magnetic dipole being the fundamental construct or ‘building block’ both of the magnetic field and of matter. The significant and further departure from mainstream is that these dipoles are here identified as the material structure of ‘flame’. This, in turn, begs the ratio that in the field condition the particles are as fast and cold and invisible as, out of a field condition they are as hot and slow and visible. And their quantized value of spin and charge is required to be intimately variable depending on the atoms that they bind.           
         
           Also of significance is that these fields may be the source of the ‘dark force’ that has been proved by astrophysicists. And on a broader scale it may also be the source of the strings that are required by our string theorists. But, as it is based on Faraday’s Lines of Force, then there are no significant departures from mainstream thinking. The hope is that it will resolve some outstanding questions related to those many paradoxes that are identified by mainstream.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 08, 2012, 01:30:13 AM
Rosemary,
don´t work on your thesis paper,
it is a wasted time cause the measurements are in error.


Just work on measuring the battery status before and after the experiment.

This is the only way to see, if your circuit really puts out more energy than it consumes...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 08, 2012, 05:09:53 AM
@All,

Today I did build the attached circuit to see:

1. If the circuit did oscillate with a negative voltage bias.
2. If the lead acid battery did charge up when the circuits runs.

The circuit oscillates very nicely when I connect the 9 volt battery,
and stop to oscillate when I disconnect the 9 volt battery.
The current usage from the 9 volt battery is approx. 0,9mA.

If the main input/output 12 volt 60 ampere lead acid battery
will charge up when the circuit is running, remains to see,
because I need to run the circuit for some time first.

GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 06:47:27 AM
Rosemary,
don´t work on your thesis paper, it is a wasted time cause the measurements are in error.
Harti - you keep saying this and I keep denying it.  To my credit is the fact that I'm experimentally INVOLVED.  To your credit is that I have not published the details related to the 555 switched circuit.  Nor will I. As it relates to the 555 switch it is NOT my work.  It belongs to one of the collaborators.  And he's reluctant to engage here - due to the gratuitous lack of respect that's offered by our forum detractors including Poynty and those sundry contributors on my hate blog.  Quite apart from which it is NOT the experiment under review.  It would need an entirely separate thread with an entirely different emphasis.

You are relying on there being grounding issues and sundry distortions related to inductance. Even IF these were ENTIRELY responsible for our results then this experiment would still need to be more fully researched.  There is NO explanation for the existence of the 'positive half' of each waveform.  And there is no explanation for a net 'negative wattage' - unless there's an alternate energy source.  The first point goes to the thesis - which is why I'm attempting to elaborate on this.  The second point needs experimental evidence - which those such as Groundloop are testing.  But Poynty - who is hardly a champion of the cause - is on record as advising you that this is unlikely to be delivered from the oscilloscope as the amount of 'surplus' energy is somewhat greater than can be reasonably expected to be delivered by the function generator - which is his proposed path.  And anyone doing the 555 test can quickly verify that there are no grounding issues. 

I put it to you that the wide interest of your readers and forum members in any over unity result would merit their engagement.  What you are proposing is that I do the work that you propose.  I'm afraid my 'time' is up when it comes to experimentation.  I am NOT an experimentalist.  My presumptions are related to the thesis which, when understood, will be far more significant than these tedious debates related to whether or not these results are correct.  And while the explanation for that 'positive half' of each waveform remains unresolved - then, indeed, our thesis is the only explanation on offer.  And it seems that both experimental evidence and simulated evidence supports this. And IF that thesis is even 'half right' - then it points to a potential efficiency that is not - usually - exploited.

Just work on measuring the battery status before and after the experiment.  This is the only way to see, if your circuit really puts out more energy than it consumes...
And again, for the record, should you somehow find two academics who will support the evidence of comparative draw-down tests - then rest assured.  I will see to it that those tests are run - repeatedly -  and that engagement will be as public as you require.  And that will ENTIRELY resolve the questions that you pose related to grounding or any other issues.  And I confidently predict that in all such tests our experiment will grossly outperform the control.

There is absolutely NO WAY that isolated measurements made - before and after testing - will resolve this.  I have explained this at length.  Our tests show no diminution in AT ALL over the entire period that we have been using those 6 batteries of ours that still remain 'uncharged'.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And if you have, indeed, managed to curtail that 'flaming' - thank you Harti.  It's appreciated.
energy's edited to 'energy'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 06:51:48 AM
My dear Groundloop,

As ever, your work is beautifully presented and entirely appropriate.  Thank you very much indeed for proposing this circuit variation.  It speaks to the question very well indeed.

Let us know what the outcome is if you get around to testing this.

The very kindest of regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 08, 2012, 07:17:38 AM
My dear Groundloop,

As ever, your work is beautifully presented and entirely appropriate.  Thank you very much indeed for proposing this circuit variation.  It speaks to the question very well indeed.

Let us know what the outcome is if you get around to testing this.

The very kindest of regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

What I have tested so far is that the circuit runs very well by using a 9 volt battery (NiMeh) as
negative bias for the mosfet transistors. I did use my scope to check. My next modification
on the circuit is using the L3 coil as a charger for the 9 volt battery when the circuit runs.
My 12 volt 60 ampere lead acid battery was out of service and I have switched to a 12
volt 7 ampere battery for testing.  The circuit is currently running for test. Attached is the next
version of the circuit. I will also test the circuit on a 650 Farad 2,7 Volt Boost Capacitor.
I will post any result of the tests here later on.

Regards,
GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 08, 2012, 07:35:40 AM
Harti - I have answered this.  But let me try this again.

We most certainly DID do that test.  It was required to counter the claim that the use of the function generator was somehow responsible for that oscillation and/or it's apparent benefits.  We most certainly did NOT need to reference an alternate schematic.  It's EXACTLY the same schematic as our detailed in our paper which I added to my previous post to you. The ONLY DIFFERENCE IS that the signal generator is now a 555 switch.  And the work load RL1 was a battery powered solder iron.   


Regards
Rosemary

Nice try diverting the subject again after your award winning "PRIZE" but .....

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg288257/#msg288257  (read me  :o )

Quote -
I need to remind you Poynt.99 that this test of ours is replicated on the following variation.  1 battery - used - same supply used to generate the charge for the switch - THEREFORE no functions generator - NO long wires on that test - NO grounding issues - same evident zero voltage discharge - and temperature over the iron resistor at 240 degrees which was hot enough to vaporise solder.


Humm .... no 555 timer mentioned or used it was a direct connection, I wonder what was the duty cycle.

Vaporized the "LEAD SOLDER" .... WOW .... 361.4 °F is the melting point, the Boiling point is 3180 °F and "VAPORIZATION" point is 179.5 KJ·mol−1  ..... incredible !!!

NO WONDER THERE'S IS NO PROOF AT ALL ANYWHERE OF THIS SOLDERING IRON EXPERIMENT IT WAS SO HOT IT TOTALLY VAPORIZED THE WHOLE THING AND NOTHING WAS LEFT LIKE COMPONENTS, DOCUMENTATION, DATA FILES, OSCILLOSCOPE SCREEN SHOTS ARE ALL GONE !!!


There's your proof ??? hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha !!!!!

FuzzyTomCat
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 10:19:18 AM
Rosemary,

What I have tested so far is that the circuit runs very well by using a 9 volt battery (NiMeh) as
negative bias for the mosfet transistors. I did use my scope to check. My next modification
on the circuit is using the L3 coil as a charger for the 9 volt battery when the circuit runs.
My 12 volt 60 ampere lead acid battery was out of service and I have switched to a 12
volt 7 ampere battery for testing.  The circuit is currently running for test. Attached is the next
version of the circuit. I will also test the circuit on a 650 Farad 2,7 Volt Boost Capacitor.
I will post any result of the tests here later on.

Regards,
GL.

Thank you Groundloop.  Any information here would be welcome when it's work that is presented so entirely objectively. 

Kindest regards, as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 08, 2012, 10:37:59 AM
@ Ground loop: did this circuit discharge the input battery ?
 And this is circuit is more related to a Bedini technology...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 10:46:44 AM

 And this is circuit is more related to a Bedini technology...
If I may presume to answer this part of your post - Schubert.  It's the same principle as it uses CEMF - but Bedini's technology is related to motors.  Ours is entirely solid state. And if and when we configure in a motor it will likely to be rather different to Bedini's set up as I'm not sure that his system is the most efficient.  We're actually working on this to try and figure out how our SA's managed this.  If you check out Sterling's forum - you'll see that there's a closed loop application of this applied to a motor that generates INFINITE COP - with a megawatt output.

Regards,
Rsoemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 08, 2012, 12:24:50 PM
@ Ground loop: did this circuit discharge the input battery ?
 And this is circuit is more related to a Bedini technology...

SchubertReijiMaigo,

Groundloop in one word, just like a plane spinning around on the runway or an audio amplifier humming because of
current flowing into a loop of ground wires. :-)

>> And this is circuit is more related to a Bedini technology...

I would call this circuit Rosemary Ainslie technology because I use the switch configuration she made.

The circuit is also oscillating with a negative voltage bias on the mosfets, just as poynt99 predicted with his Spice simulations.
The core is a Metglas core and I have an output coil with a diode bridge setup to send energy back to the battery. Scope shots
show a nice clean sinus so there is no "voltage spikes" or "radiant energy" as people like to call it. So what we have here is an
oscillator that uses energy from the battery through the L1 coil. We use the L2 coil (with diodes) to send energy back to the input.
The L3 coil (all three coils is on the same Metglas core) is an auxiliary coil so that I can use energy from the running oscillator
to charge my 9 volt NiMeH battery when the circuit runs. See version 2 of the circuit drawing.

>>did this circuit discharge the input battery ?

I do not know. I have discovered that all my lead acid batteries is bad because of long shelf storage.
I have one 12 volt 1,5 amp, five 12 volt 7 amp. and one 12 volt 60 amp. They are all bad and ready
for recycling. So right now I can't test this circuit on lead acid batteries, sorry about that.

I have one 650 Farad 2,7 volt Boost capacitor that are OK. I will charge this capacitor to 1 volt
and test on the circuit. I do not know at this time if the circuit will run at so low voltage.
I will report back when this testing is done.

Regards,
Groundloop.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 08, 2012, 01:30:30 PM
@All,

OK, I did charge up my 650 Farad 2.7 Volt Boost capacitor to 1.2 Volt.

Connected to circuit, plugged in the 9 volt battery, did get an oscillation,
checked with a o-scope over the L3 coil. See attached image. Let the
circuit run. Measured the voltage over the Boost capacitor to be 1.191 volt 
after 15 minutes run time. After 30 minutes run the voltage dropped
down to 1.188 volt. The circuit still runs according to the o-scope.
After 45 minutes the voltage on the Boost Capacitor dropped to 1.185 volt.
So it is quite clear that the voltage in the capacitor is dropping over time.
I did stop the test after 45 minutes run time because the capacitor is
dropping in voltage and clearly discharging over time.

On the next test I will be using a 10uF 650V MKP low loss capacitor on the input.
The capacitor will be pre charged to 12 Volt before the test run.

[EDIT] The 10uF capacitor did discharge in approx. 1 second.

GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 08, 2012, 07:25:53 PM
GL,

The 12V battery connection is a little unusual. You won't be able to get any appreciable power output from this connection, not that that was your intent.

I have redrawn your first diagram slightly (diagram A), leaving out the inactive Q2 MOSFET.

Try moving the negative of the 12V battery as in B and see if it still oscillates. This of course is a more conventional connection.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 08, 2012, 08:13:59 PM
GL,

The 12V battery connection is a little unusual. You won't be able to get any appreciable power output from this connection, not that that was your intent.

I have redrawn your first diagram slightly (diagram A), leaving out the inactive Q2 MOSFET.

Try moving the negative of the 12V battery as in B and see if it still oscillates. This of course is a more conventional connection.

.99

Poynty?  This is jolly decent of you.  Thank you very much.  And keep it up.  We may yet get to the same page.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 08, 2012, 09:52:20 PM
GL.

You may want to try this. Your original circuit will not be able to deliver any appreciable power to a load.

You need stray inductance in the gate, and a good AC return path to make this form oscillate. Hence the 10" of wire, and the capacitor. No guarantee this will oscillate, as I have not simulated your circuit. But you will see that this is getting in line with the circuit I posted before that I will be building for my tests.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 09, 2012, 04:13:00 AM
GL, you've noted the following at OUR:
Quote
Instead Q1 will conduct a small current through the L1 coil and from the battery.
Now because Q1 is conducting then Q1 will provide a small voltage to the gate of Q2.
This will make Q2 conduct current and the oscillation starts.

I believe this is quite possibly how it is working. It might then be a unique oscillator.

As such, I've redrawn your circuit yet again, but this time with emphasis on Q2 (it drives the load). You may notice that the 9V is simply turning Q1 partially (or fully) ON so as to channel VD to Q2's Gate.

In the second part of the drawing, I've attempted to simplify the circuit by eliminating Q1, and providing bias to Q2 through Rbias. It would be interesting to see if that would still work.

I would also be interested to see if the first circuit still works with wire "p" removed. I believe it may be unnecessary. There is a balancing act between the negative Q2 bias applied by the 9V, and a positive bias applied by Q1. It's just a question of whether the negative bias is even required, because we know that Q2 ultimately needs a positive bias to operate.

.99

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 09, 2012, 05:40:20 AM
Guys, 

Here's an extract from our paper to remind you all what our submission is about. 

It is an explicit emphasis of this paper that there are no empirical conclusions drawn from any of the tests detailed herein. We have simply pointed to the repeated evidence of a measured instantaneous negative wattage that, as mentioned, has no relevance within the standard model. The indications are that this has a potential to enhance energy efficiencies beyond its assumed limits.  And this requires further research and investigation that is beyond the budgetary constraints of the collaborators.

Therefore the intention of this paper is to bring these anomalies to the academic forum so that experts can research these effects more thoroughly. There are many questions here that need answers and it is considered that this is best established across a broad range of research to establish the checks and balances required for the progress of this and any new technology. The fact that these results can be simulated should enable an easy overview of these claims and also enable a wide range of participants to evaluate this evidence. This would be a desirable consequence, the more so as there may here exist some potential solutions to the global energy crisis that is growing ever more critical in the face of diminishing or pollutant energy sources coupled with our burgeoning global need for increased supplies. It must be remembered that this work has been open sourced and is not therefore patentable. It is hoped that further research in this field will follow suit in the interests of promoting a thorough understanding of this and the field study that preceded these experiments. Also we have not found reviewed publication of prior work into these effects, constituting, as it does, a marked departure from standard concepts related to the transfer of electric energy. This, therefore, constitutes a seminal study and it is therefore understood to limit the citations.


Regards,
Rosemary

Sorry guys.  I seem to have duplicated a paragraph - that I've now deleted. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 09, 2012, 07:45:19 AM
My dear Groundloop,

I want to assure you that none of us consider any tests beyond what you've proposed - as being either required or relevant.  We are well aware of your expertise to determine what you, yourself require.  And I am entirely satisfied that - if anyone can guide us to some kind of resolution of of some of these anomalies, then it is indeed, such as yourself.

What I'm trying to make very clear - is that we are all of us well acquainted with your considerable skills and I, personally, would not presume to advise you on any tests that you think is appropriate.  I am more than happy to rest on your advices.

With the very best and kindest of regards to you Groundloop,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 09, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
Howdy there to the three faithful readers ....

It appears all the hoopla on the secret paper of the fictitious COP>INFINITY circuit and device, was published in December 2011 months ago at "SCRIBID" ......

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74884882/2nd-Paper-for-Download (http://www.scribd.com/doc/74884882/2nd-Paper-for-Download)

It was uploaded by a " stevex2 " whom owns the copyright on the document and now that it's been published it can't appear at all in a technical or academic journal in its present context and has to be totally rewritten. :o

Actually I can see why it was published after reading half way through ..... I couldn't stop laughing !!!  ::)

FuzzyTomCat
 :P

added - Please note there is no "Copyright" shown on this document
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 09, 2012, 03:15:38 PM
Guys,

I have freely circulated our 2nd part of the the 2-part paper to many members of this forum and to many academics who have not actively been a part of this forum.  I also sent a copy to Poynty and to Harti.  Those are the only two who I know actively work against this technology.  I will not allude to who may or may not be responsible for this.  That publication in Scribd constitutes a criminal act of fraud - as the publication implies rights of ownership of that document that is exclusively our own.  One can only conclude that this is yet another attempt to prevent publication in a reviewed journal.  Which is clearly intended to sabotage our efforts at publishing.  Fortunately it does not.

I trust that if anyone at all still doubts that our technology is SERIOUSLY attacked - then this latest ploy will be seen as yet more evidence.  Not only is there a dire want of professionalism associated with the level of traducement applied to me - but there's an evident anxiety that this publication is discounted on whatever pretext that can be managed.  And PROOF that this thesis of ours is considered positively dangerous - is precisely the criminal lengths to which sundry discreditors will go to try and prevent publication.  Apparently it is not enough to simply accuse me of lunacy and incompetence.  They must do their damnedest to prevent any respectable publication at all. 

Fortunately for us all - there is now such an acute interest in the claim and the thesis that supports this claim that there is nothing that will actually stand in the way of publication.  That's the inevitable consequence of any inappropriate or disproportionate efforts at silencing me and discrediting the technology.  It has, curiously, evoked more interest in this than otherwise.  LOL.  Who would have thought?  And.  I have been assured - repeatedly - that if there were not this very patent drive to 'attack' and to discredit both me and the technology - then the claim itself would have been more easily discounted.   Which just goes to show how History both orchestrates and determines its own ironies. It seems that 'truth' will out - and I suspect that this over unity drive of ours - of all of us who are actively working to salvage our planet - that we will also be the ultimate beneficiaries.   

Again.  Guys.  We have proposed NOTHING that is new.  We have only pointed to the source of energy that has been most perfectly defined by our Greats and by our competent mainstream scientists.  I look forward to the actual definitive publication as a reviewed paper.  Because when that happens then our academics can comment without the disgrace associated with what is considered eccentric science.  And it will be considered eccentric UNTIL it's ultimate publication in a reviewed journal.  Can't wait. 

It's also alarmingly apparent that Harti has no objections to the malicious traducement that Glen indulges in this thread.  It  will always be here as long as this forum remains - as the rather questionable evidence of Harti's commitment to over unity.  One hopes that he has good reason to permit this disgraceful breach of 'forum guidelines'.  This matter should be of some considerable interest to you all.  I have given up trying to understand Harti's permission of Glen's posts.  It tends to a liberal indulgence of any critical input - regardless of its evident lack of moderation or appropriateness.  When the green eyed monster takes over a person's psyche - then, evidently, that psyche becomes seriously deranged. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 09, 2012, 07:30:28 PM
Howdy there to the three faithful readers ....
______________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg277705/#msg277705 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg277705/#msg277705)  (read me  :o )

Quote-
Hello Everyone,

TinselKoala wonders...
All of the circuit components specifications are given EXCEPT:
Function Generator and 6x12V batteries – Raylite Silver Calcium.
This is very strange, why would you omit the specifications of such vital circuit components and yet provide the others ?

For example, the Raylite batteries sold by Battery Centre list this page for Raylite Silver Calcium cells:
http://www.batterycentre.co.za/fnbSpec02/b-spec.asp?id=3 (http://www.batterycentre.co.za/fnbSpec02/b-spec.asp?id=3)

and this page for the features and benefits of this technology:
http://www.batterycentre.co.za/SilverCalciumBattery.htm (http://www.batterycentre.co.za/SilverCalciumBattery.htm)

So which model of 12V silver calcium cell did Battery Centre give you ? It will say the model number on the casing ;)
______________________________________________________________________________________

Ah yes .... the battery ....

For years now we have asked for a "SIMPLE" part number and have we ever gotten one ..... no, no, no

These eight ( 8 ) batteries shown which are the six ( 6 ) used for "ALL" the experiments .... no identifying marks ( 1 through 8 ) on any of the images

What is the battery AH (amp hour) rating and other specifications ..... but at this point in the development of nothing, or a COP>INFINITY is it even important :o

FuzzyTomCat
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 10, 2012, 12:35:26 AM
All right... let's try this another way, since Rosemary won't answer my simple and direct questions about her energy calculations.

Rosemary....  let's say I have 100 grams of water at 20 degrees C, and I raise that water to 80 degrees C over a timespan of 60 minutes. How much energy have I put into the water to heat it up? Assume a nice insulated container for the water.
What is the _average_ power that I must use?

Please show your work.


Note that if Rosemary can't do this simple calculation, or does it wrong, or bullshits about it, you will NEVER be able to agree on your analysis of the results from your current set of experiments.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 10, 2012, 03:53:03 AM
All right... let's try this another way, since Rosemary won't answer my simple and direct questions about her energy calculations.

Rosemary....  let's say I have 100 grams of water at 20 degrees C, and I raise that water to 80 degrees C over a timespan of 60 minutes. How much energy have I put into the water to heat it up? Assume a nice insulated container for the water.
What is the _average_ power that I must use?

Please show your work.


Note that if Rosemary can't do this simple calculation, or does it wrong, or bullshits about it, you will NEVER be able to agree on your analysis of the results from your current set of experiments.


6.97 Watts?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 10, 2012, 04:41:20 AM

Rosemary....  let's say I have 100 grams of water at 20 degrees C, and I raise that water to 80 degrees C over a timespan of 60 minutes. How much energy have I put into the water to heat it up? Assume a nice insulated container for the water.
What is the _average_ power that I must use?

Please show your work.


 We can all use an online calculator, which I presume you did as you show no working, and 6.97 Watts is only a valid answer if attempting to hide the working, which would cause embarrassment to some. It is also an incorrect answer, the online calculator you used rounded down without telling you, or you rounded to two decimal places without telling us.

The answer is Average Power of 6.973 recurring Watts.


The specific heat capacity of water is 4.184 J/g C


Q = mc dt
Q = 100 x 4.184 x (80 – 20 )
Q = 100 x 4.184 x 60
Q = 25104 Joules


A Joule is a unit of energy and is not a Watt.


A Watt is a unit of Power and therefore requires a time component because it is a rate at which energy is consumed.


1 Watt = 1 Joule per Second


Therefore 25104 J / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = 6.9733333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 Watts


6.973 Watts = 6.973 Joules per Second (to 3 decimal places)



I smell a RAT


RM :)
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 10, 2012, 06:03:48 AM
I'm delighted to see that everyone's answering TK's question.  I'm not sure I'd dare.  And IF that was a question by Glen Lettenmaier related to batteries - then here's the thing.  We were donated those beautiful Raylites.  But they have no ratings detailed on the battery itself.  We've tried to determine this and were advised that they're 40 ampere hour AND subsequently - that they're 60 ampere hour.  Don't know for sure and there's no way that we can find this out definitively.

We erred on the side of caution and have used the 60 AH rating for our paper.  Here's the 'extract' from our paper.
 
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries’ rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis now, for over 18 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 12 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. Bearing in mind that the batteries’ rating is is not more than 60AH, there is evidence of out performance related to that rating.  However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This would require a detailed analysis of the supply’s electrolytic properties that is outside the scope of this presentation and expertise. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

So TK - YOU do the math.  And when you do this - factor in the continual use of 6 batteries only - as 2 were taken out of circulation some time back.  Or better still - average it at 7 batteries.  And then factor in that we've had possession of those batteries since late Jan early feb of 2010. Which means that its usage has been FAR more extensive than the conservatively assessed 18 months of continual use.  The usage has NOW actually spanned closer to 26 months.  And then try and explain why there is apparently absolutely NO LOSS OF VOLTAGE OVER ANY OF THE BATTERIES SINCE THE DAY WE TOOK POSSESSION. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 10, 2012, 08:24:01 AM
And MileHigh

I was given your absolute assurance that you'd 'given up' on this subject.  Clearly you're undertakings mean nothing.  But let me advise you - if you think that I'm depending on that battery data - then it's belied by the text in the paper.  What a strange man you are.  You look at the written word and assume that it's not written.  I only mention the evidence that the batteries are still showing the same voltage as when we first took possession which implies - if anything - that they've outperformed their watt hour rating.  But that's taking the assumption that we use 20 working days per week - when our most extensive testing is at the weekends.  And in terms of my own calculations - which are suspect at BEST - but at their absolutely nominal average - then I THINK we should have discharged not less than 90% of each battery's capacity. 

But read the text.  The battery performance is absolutely NOT the claim.  It is just a passing reference.  I do however, confidently predict that our circuit would outperform a control.  And I'd be very happy to test that - as mentioned - with some attention to a small caveat that we've also mentioned - all over the place.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

And MileHigh - as a word of caution.  If you want to garner any credibility in this continual background 'muttering' you need to learn the trick of posting over the ENTIRE post - else we'll all start thinking that you're applying some kind of editorial EMPHASIS - that is intended to mitigate against our claim.  I fondly believe that one day your offspring (if you have any) will thank the likes us poor experimentalists into this over unity reach.  And they'll hopefully be able to reference your own diligence in trying to prevent this knowledge.  Which may confuse them somewhat.  It certainly confuses me.  On the whole I'm hoping that this information will be progressed.  On the whole you're hoping that this information won't be progressed.  I'm not sure that we're on the same side - somehow.

Again,
as ever,
Rosie Pose,
 :-*   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 10, 2012, 08:59:27 AM

6.973 Watts = 6.973 Joules per Second (to 3 decimal places)

I smell a RAT



What?  Are you such a pedant that you are seriously trying to put my answer down as wrong?  Ever heard of rounding?


And I did not use any online calculator.  There is no Google function for 100 grams of water raised by 60 degrees for 60 minutes.  I used physics formulas.  This is not rocket science, dude.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 10, 2012, 09:54:00 AM
We can all use an online calculator, which I presume you did as you show no working, and 6.97 Watts is only a valid answer if attempting to hide the working, which would cause embarrassment to some. It is also an incorrect answer, the online calculator you used rounded down without telling you, or you rounded to two decimal places without telling us.

The answer is Average Power of 6.973 recurring Watts.


The specific heat capacity of water is 4.184 J/g C


Q = mc dt
Q = 100 x 4.184 x (80 – 20 )
Q = 100 x 4.184 x 60
Q = 25104 Joules


A Joule is a unit of energy and is not a Watt.


A Watt is a unit of Power and therefore requires a time component because it is a rate at which energy is consumed.


1 Watt = 1 Joule per Second


Therefore 25104 J / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = 6.9733333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 Watts


6.973 Watts = 6.973 Joules per Second (to 3 decimal places)



I smell a RAT


RM :)

Well actually the question was for Rosemary .....

A) Multiply the mass of water by the temperature, to calculate the required energy in calories. For example, to raise the temperature of 100 grams of water by 60 degrees, you need to calculate: 100 x 60 = 6,000 calories.


B) Multiply the energy in calories by 4.186 to convert it to joules (J). In this example, the energy is 6,000 x 4.186 = 25,116 J.


C) Multiply the time in minutes by 60 to convert it to seconds. For example, if you need to raise the temperature in 60 minutes -- then 60 x 60 = 3600 seconds.


D) Divide the energy by the time, to calculate the electrical power needed. In this example, the required power is 25,116 / 3600 = 6.9766666 Watts.


Answer - 6.9766666 Watts


FuzzyTomCat
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 10, 2012, 01:24:09 PM

What?  Are you such a pedant that you are seriously trying to put my answer down as wrong?  Ever heard of rounding?


And I did not use any online calculator.  There is no Google function for 100 grams of water raised by 60 degrees for 60 minutes.  I used physics formulas.  This is not rocket science, dude.

 Hmmm... “pedant”, who would use a word like that ?

 
You answered a question that was not for you, it was clearly for Rosemary, allowing Rosemary to dodge the issue completely. Of course I have heard of rounding it was in my reply you idiot. RTFQ!

 
There is no Google function for 100 grams of water raised by 60 degrees for 60 minutes because ENERGY and POWER are NOT THE SAME thing. You would use a calculator to calculate energy and then use another calculator to convert to power. The difference between Joules and Watts is the point!

 
TK asked TWO questions:

 
How much energy is put into the water to heat it up ?

 
What is the_average_power he must use ?

 
You only answered ONE question, I answered both.

 
You failed to show your working despite explicitly being requested in the question that was not for you. This may have highlighted whether you used the thermochemical calorie value of 4.184 as I did, or the International Table calorie value of 4.1868 like Fuzzy used. I assume you used the 4.184 because if you didn't and rounded you would get 6.98 Watts. The question never asked you to round anyway.


 
If this was an exam you would most definitely FAIL!

 
Your input so far in this thread appears to me to show an agenda of community support for Rosemary that does not exist, and to take the heat off when she is asked difficult questions and wishes to avoid answering AT ALL COSTS!

 
Like I said... I SMELL A RAT

 
RM  :)

 

 

 
 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 10, 2012, 07:02:14 PM

Your input so far in this thread appears to me to show an agenda of community support for Rosemary that does not exist, and to take the heat off when she is asked difficult questions and wishes to avoid answering AT ALL COSTS!

 
Like I said... I SMELL A RAT

 
RM  :)


I am just sick of all the MIB-wannabes trying to suppress the Ainslie technology.  She needs support so she can bring this to market.  This technology is lifechanging for  the world.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 10, 2012, 07:36:12 PM
I find this very interesting...

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1358.msg21853#msg21853


And my response....

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1358.msg21863#msg21863


Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 10, 2012, 07:51:19 PM

I am just sick of all the MIB-wannabes trying to suppress the Ainslie technology.  She needs support so she can bring this to market.  This technology is lifechanging for  the world.

LOL - thanks for the concern eatenbyagrue.  Actually I've got nothing to 'bring to the market'.  That's really NOT my interest.  I'm only interested getting this to the academic forum.  Way more important.  That way we can, hopefully, make this over unity study marginally more respectable.  And while it's unlikely that I'd win a popularity contest - I actually prefer the argument.  Bit boring when everyone's on the same page.  I know this from a year or so at Energetic forum.  It's like bathing in honey.  I'd dip into some kind of vicarious dialogue with TK or sundry - just to get something to counteract all that sugar.  Truth is I'm massively entertained by the 'objections'.  I get a bit scared when I see the imbalance associated with some of our posters.  But on the whole - it keeps me on my toes and keeps my boredom at bay.  And I've found that these rather weak counterarguments are as good a way as any to remind our readers about the technology.  So.  There's real value to all their protests.  And I'd be sorry to find approval amongst the most of them.  I regret not having Poynty on board.  Because he's got the rare benefit of a real talent.  But I'd be rather ashamed if I found the most of them supporting me in any way. 

But I am, nonetheless - grateful for the rare evidence of support.  Mainly because I'm impressed by the courage.  You need to be quite brave to stand up to this much orchestrated dislike.  For my part though.  I get a kick out of it.  Not sure that it's healthy reaction.  But it's the truth.  I think I'm possibly guilty of too much self-esteem.  It's my only fault.  LOL

Take good care of yourself eatenbyagrue.  I've been looking at your other posts.  Not a prolific writer - but very succinct.  I wish I could learn that trick.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 10, 2012, 08:02:03 PM
I find this very interesting...

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1358.msg21853#msg21853 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1358.msg21853#msg21853)


And my response....

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1358.msg21863#msg21863 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1358.msg21863#msg21863)


Mags

Hi Magsy.  Another one of those brave souls.  I can't get into either link without becoming a member?  Can you post over the text.  I'd be intrigued.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

I see that the board topic is 'off limits' to me.  It seems that there's another 'hate blog' in the offing.  LOL.  What's new?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 10, 2012, 08:04:03 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 10, 2012, 08:15:11 PM
;)

Thanks for posting the text.  Magsy - there's no question that Poynty's 'against' over unity.  And I'm inclined to think that MileHigh may be as well.  LOL.  Peterae tries to put in the odd word in support of this - now and again.  But you're right.  But what's scarey is that I'm not sure there are ANY forums that the owners actively support this.  I think the support is ALWAYS for 'debatable' values.  NEVER for conclusive proof.  I'd give my eye teeth to know why they expend all that energy aimed at so much negativity.

Rosie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 10, 2012, 08:44:17 PM
I think Stephan is a good guy.  I think when he questions you of some things, you might have a bit of skepticism of his motives. But I believe he is just trying to get some points straight.  In reality, if he has a prize to be awarded, then his rules to obtaining it are solid.

Dont take this badly. ;]
 
Like the request of the 555 timer circuit. Why wont you post it? I would be interested in seeing it also.  Just saying you have covered it, is kinda saying that he has to go back through all of the threads to find it.

Ive had that done to me in requests of previous info. But I dont do that. I most always will repost info again so that all may see easily what they may have missed without having to work hard for it.  ;] After all, it is up to me to prove beyond a shaddow what I am talking about, and if reposting gets things done faster, then I will do it. ;]

I know you have some criteria as to what when and how you reveal  answers to requests, these criteria may be impeding your ability to move forward.

;]

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 10, 2012, 09:02:16 PM
What IS your problem magluvin?

Clearly you misunderstood what I said, and now you are trying to make it appear as though I don't support FE research. You've taken this out of context and not posted my reply, which clarifies for you how you should have understood it. Clearly you had an agenda and were looking for anything to use against OUR.

You are wrong. Now, are you going to make this right and post the rest of that conversation?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 10, 2012, 09:36:42 PM
I think Stephan is a good guy.  I think when he questions you of some things, you might have a bit of skepticism of his motives. But I believe he is just trying to get some points straight.  In reality, if he has a prize to be awarded, then his rules to obtaining it are solid.
Why - if he's a 'good guy' does he take Glen off moderation?  And then allow those posts of his?  Where everyone tries to knock the technology - Glen shouts over the entire thread and his accusations are pure calumny and so far out of line as to be actionable.  Yet Harti does nothing?
 
Like the request of the 555 timer circuit. Why wont you post it? I would be interested in seeing it also.  Just saying you have covered it, is kinda saying that he has to go back through all of the threads to find it.
It is NOT my work to post.  I would need to engage one of the collaborators.  And they have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in engaging on these forums.  I've explained this.

Ive had that done to me in requests of previous info. But I dont do that. I most always will repost info again so that all may see easily what they may have missed without having to work hard for it.  ;] After all, it is up to me to prove beyond a shaddow what I am talking about, and if reposting gets things done faster, then I will do it. ;]
I have NOT posted details of the work.  There's nothing to find.  I may have posted the screen download.  But can't swear to it.  I've got one waveform that could be right but it shows 3 batteries and - from memory we used two.  Quite apart from which I'm more than willing to do the ONLY test that may prove this conclusively.  One would have thought that it's relatively easy for Prof Jones and/or Poynty to find academics to approve those protocols.  I've done my bit Mags.  Above and beyond.  Why should I do more.  We've posted CONCLUSIVE proof related to measurements.  Where else has any OU claim been as thoroughly reported?  And WHY then is this fact being so HEAVILY discounted.  From where I sit there's an agenda.  Under usual circumstances there would be some acknowledgement.  But all that SCORN?  AND NOTHING ELSE? WHY?

I know you have some criteria as to what when and how you reveal  answers to requests, these criteria may be impeding your ability to move forward.
I have NO criteria.  I don't even know what you mean.  The ONLY thing that this thread was restarted for was to challenge Poynty and Prof Jones for their prizes - and that only to assure our readers that our results are DEFINITIVE.  They've both gone to some considerable lengths to deny this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 10, 2012, 09:52:51 PM
What IS your problem magluvin?

Clearly you misunderstood what I said, and now you are trying to make it appear as though I don't support FE research. You've taken this out of context and not posted my reply, which clarifies for you how you should have understood it. Clearly you had an agenda and were looking for anything to use against OUR.

You are wrong. Now, are you going to make this right and post the rest of that conversation?

Poynty Point,

Are you seriously proposing to advance any kind of belief that you have an interest in Over Unity on THIS thread?  Just look again at your contributions.  From where I sit you have NO argument against our numbers.  Nor have you even attempted to explain that waveform.  There was and is clear evidence that you are more anxious to dismiss the claim than argue it.  And those sad little arguments that you proposed are seriously wanting in scientific justification.  Why are your 'friends' not pointing this out?  Are they colluding?  With your agenda?

Regards
Rosemary

AND WHAT IS THIS NEED TO KEEP ME AND POSSIBLY OTHERS OUT OF YOUR FORUM DISCUSSIONS.  ARE YOU OPEN SOURCE OR WHAT?

AND MORE TO THE POINT - WHY ARE YOU NOT DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PROMOTE THAT DEFINITIVE TEST.  You KNOW academics - or you claim to know them.  Then ask them to support the require protocols.  I'll define the required.  They only need to endorse it.  SIMPLE.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 11, 2012, 12:42:05 AM
 I'm so glad there is one of the three faithful readers of Rosemary's that can actually do "MATH" ...... what a relief ......

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314918/#msg314918 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314918/#msg314918)   Reply #820 on: March 10, 2012, 04:41:20 AM



I am just sick of all the MIB-wannabes trying to suppress the Ainslie technology.  She needs support so she can bring this to market.  This technology is lifechanging for  the world.

Here is a mathematical problems Rosemary has refused countless times to verify that her summation is "INCORRECT" as "ALL" other OU members here have indicated .....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292920/#msg292920 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292920/#msg292920)    Reply #1644 on: June 27, 2011, 04:46:37 AM

Rosemary Ainslie "Quote"

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential -  a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules x 90 minutes of the test period =  22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes =  3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 =  25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is  10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The challenge being that Rosemary concludes her "MATHEMATICAL DATA" is correct and "REFUSES" to verify the facts as stated in the QUOTE above.

Please, do the math verification of the "TOTAL SUMS" in GREEN as listed above ....

We will then verify "YOUR" findings and "IF" Rosemary is correct.


FuzzyTomCat
 8)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 11, 2012, 02:27:18 AM
Forget it Magluvin,

We've deleted that thread as well. I've pm'd Stefan advising him to remove your post here.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 11, 2012, 02:39:05 AM
Poynty Point,

Are you seriously proposing to advance any kind of belief that you have an interest in Over Unity on THIS thread?

Rosemary, are you ever going to understand what's going on around you? No, I was not making any statement in reference to THIS thread. My comment was in reference to supporting FE research in general, which I DO. RTFP.

Magluvin carelessly saw fit to take a comment I made (which he misunderstood) out of context and post it here with mal-intent. So I had to respond HERE...get it?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 11, 2012, 03:12:51 AM
Just got off of the phone with my mom. Havnt talked in a couple weeks. Her Yellow Nape 25 yrs old has cancer. Priorities....

Poynt,  the thread is gone, so how can I post it? Was there a problem with it that it needed erasing? If you have a copy, you can post it. But then we would have to say, hmmm, is it now modified? So posting it is useless. ;] Hmm, maybe I have a whole copy. ;]  Maybe I dont. ;]

Now, can you tell us if I do or I dont? ;]

Poynt, when I read that, and the thread, I can see the attitude towards John. I dont see it as respectful. Now that the thread is gone, I cant show any of it, no more than I have already right? ;]

And with Rose, If, IF you know she is wrong about all of this, then why is it that you continuously follow her to ridicule and discredit her, when you have done it all before? For how long now? What do you requirer from her, in this lifetime, that you will finally be at peace with this? Obsessed? Little voices?

If you had the manners and show of professional attitude such as the Prof in all of this, I and some others would not be taking a neck jerk second glance at what is happening here. 3 readers, get real.

Is that so Stephan? Only 3 readers of this thread?   

Ya know what Poynt, all this bashing has me thinking maybe she has something. Like why are these guys always after Rose with forks in tongue?  Maybe thats the only reason you, TK, Mh, kitty cats and the others are always spending THIS amount of time doing so.  And so little time trying to actually work TOWARDS FE possibilities. Whether Rose is right or wrong, all of THIS, years of negativity toward an FE hopeful, can discourage others from the idea that FE possibly exists. Or do you disagree on that?  When have any of you guys worked on a project in actual hopes of FE, and not just to disprove, ? I dont see anything.

If not for that reason, then it is just fun for you all. That will get you lots of respect. Keep up the great work fellas, were all rootin fer ya.

Now to Rose.....     next post....

Mags


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 11, 2012, 05:21:15 AM
Rosie said, "From where I sit you have NO argument against our numbers." To .99.... but I'm quite sure he agrees with me, on the argument against Rosie's numbers. Which I will repeat again below. Rosie's numbers are wrong. Mistaken or deliberate prevarication.... take your pick, but wrong they are indeed. The "overunity" battery performance is actually quite ordinary, because Rosemary VASTLY overstates the energy used up in her "tests", due to her lack of understanding energy, power, their units, their relationships, and basic mathematics.

For evolvingape and eatenbyagrue: You are correct in your calculations.... but the quibble about exact values and exact computations misses an important fact: we are dealing with experimental data. You cannot have more significant digits in your answer than the LEAST number of significant digits in the input data. Here are the numbers I used: 4.2 Joules per Calorie, 60 degrees temperature change, 100 grams water, 60 minutes. And I got 7 Watts average input, and 25000 Joules energy input. Close enough.

Now... compare with the way Rosemary does the calculation. By her mistaken reasoning, the energy input was 25000 Joules PER SECOND  TIMES 60 minutes, or 1,500,000 somethings, which she mistakenly calls "Joules"... because she thinks a Joule is a Watt per second.

Observe:
Quoting Rosemary Ainslie, in post #666 of this thread:

Quote
NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.


So she would, in my example, have OVERSTATED the energy used from the battery by a factor of 60 TIMES. But she used 90 minutes.... so in other words, her "tests"... if she has even done them and reported the numbers honestly..... use 90 TIMES LESS energy than she has claimed. It's no wonder her batteries don't deplete.... because she's hardly loading them at all with these tests as described.

We aren't even mentioning the fact that she is counting the same energy twice, as well as inflating it by a factor of 90, can't even subtract 82 from 104 (she gets "20") and clearly doesn't understand what "PER" means mathematically.

So you see: her entire claim of overunity rests on the batteries not discharging as fast as she thinks they should have done, based on the WRONG calculation of the energy required by the tests. Since this is WRONG, her claim of excess energy is WRONG and must be retracted. Anything else is just... FLAT OUT LYING.

Oh... by the way... a fully charged 12-volt lead acid battery, under no load --- that is, by simply putting a voltmeter across the terminals when the battery is sitting there out of circuit ---, should read about 13.5 volts or even higher. They will read over 12 volts until almost completely discharged, when tested under no load.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 11, 2012, 05:28:06 AM
Why - if he's a 'good guy' does he take Glen off moderation?  And then allow those posts of his?  Where everyone tries to knock the technology - Glen shouts over the entire thread and his accusations are pure calumny and so far out of line as to be actionable.  Yet Harti does nothing?
  It is NOT my work to post.  I would need to engage one of the collaborators.  And they have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in engaging on these forums.  I've explained this.
I have NOT posted details of the work.  There's nothing to find.  I may have posted the screen download.  But can't swear to it.  I've got one waveform that could be right but it shows 3 batteries and - from memory we used two.  Quite apart from which I'm more than willing to do the ONLY test that may prove this conclusively.  One would have thought that it's relatively easy for Prof Jones and/or Poynty to find academics to approve those protocols.  I've done my bit Mags.  Above and beyond.  Why should I do more.  We've posted CONCLUSIVE proof related to measurements.  Where else has any OU claim been as thoroughly reported?  And WHY then is this fact being so HEAVILY discounted.  From where I sit there's an agenda.  Under usual circumstances there would be some acknowledgement.  But all that SCORN?  AND NOTHING ELSE? WHY?
I have NO criteria.  I don't even know what you mean.  The ONLY thing that this thread was restarted for was to challenge Poynty and Prof Jones for their prizes - and that only to assure our readers that our results are DEFINITIVE.  They've both gone to some considerable lengths to deny this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 Hey Rose
 
 Ive been on here since 2009 or so, and I read a lot of what Stephan posts when he does that I see, and I can see he definitely is pro fe, in my honest opinion.  I believe that when you put your threads up, that he is in full hopes of seeing something good. Can you say otherwise? As for Glenn, I suppose once the threads get to the point that the "tech" really isnt being further proven in anyway and its all just battling that never fully brings proven answers to issues to the table, then the thread becomes probably useless to drive space for the site.
 
 In order to have a successful thread of your tech, you may just have to provide more proofs than you have already. I know that you will disagree, but this is politics sweety.  I think you will have to do a demo for people that you want to convince.
 
 It is hard to convince people to replicate your setup, mostly due to costs of the batteries(most wont get that kind of donations), and having the proper equipment, time and so forth. If poynt does purchase THE batteries, that will be a first. ;]
 
 Rose, sometimes just words an pics on a thread or blog is not enough to convince. I know that you dont have the funding to do public demos. This is a ruthless business to be in without the funds to push it forward if you have something.
 
 I know you have stated that there are working replications. But if they cannot be verified, this hurts your case to even say so. It is best not to use these references with your claim if they cannot be produced. I have police, sheriff and atty friends that would say this is basics.
 So doing so will not help but hurt.
 
 "I've done my bit Mags.  Above and beyond.  Why should I do more.  We've posted CONCLUSIVE proof related to measurements.  Where else has any OU claim been as thoroughly reported?"
 
 I know how you feel. And considering thoroughly reported ou, being that it isnt done that often, then you cannot say for sure that you have done enough, due to there is nothing to compare it to. I know you think you are done, but that is up to you, not based on anything we can fathom. OU is not normal, or familiar ground that we can refer to.   Do you know what Im saying?  ;]
 
 When I say criteria, I mean when you say "I've done my bit Mags.  Above and beyond.  Why should I do more"  Thats what I mean. Well, if it ist getting you what you want yet, then maybe you need a few more bits, and maybe you need to go higher above and beyond, and maybe do more.  Geddit? ;] 
 
 Once a few years ago, I thought I had the magnetic motor problems solved. I was working on the Whipmag replications, trying to recreate TK's aka Al had posted a video of on YT. To see it, knowing what it was suppose to be, it gave me such a boost into researching FE that I have dedicated most of my spare time ever since.
 
 I came up with this new idea that mechanically flipped the stator magnets in sync with the rotor to make it continuously spin. I made a test setup to prove my concept and the demo worked to my expectations. I was chatting with OC, the idea man behind the Whipmag, about of my new project idea, and was premature with trying to get info on who I could get the motor tested and approved. A company that does testing on these types of things. Oc recommended Al, as he said he knew of such places.
 
 So I engaged conversation with AL/TK on YT pm about what I was looking for and why. I had described it just a bit at first, and he sounded interested. But in trying to get an answer as to where I could go, he asked me to explain the idea a bit more before divulging the company as he said the idea needs to be serious and working before he would even venture to have me engage them with it. He was being cautious, because if he refers me, he would not want to waste their time. Understandable.
 
 I became trusting, and began to explain in words, and he seemed to be soaking it in.
 along the way, I would ask for the companies name and would get , not yet answers. I became paranoid as to divulging more, and I told him that all that I divulged was incorrect on purpose to get a simple answer from him. When really it was all correct. I was scared. I thought I was being taken.  Paranoia will destroy ya.
 
 But ya know what, when I told him that it was all fake descriptions he did give me the company name and we hadnt spoken since. I was embarassed.
 I felt badly of the whole situation and wanted to appologize to him after a bit, but I figured i had ruined any trust level while in my paranoid state I was in for a while.
 
 I felt bad because we were getting along pretty good, very friendly. He is a very smart guy.
 
 Later I had fully made the machine. All hand made with a precision anyone would respect.  Only when it was all together, did I realize my mistake of increasing the count number of stator and rotor mags from the original test demo caused issue with turning only one stator at a time. It was contacting  more than 2 at a time all of the time. I was pissed. I screwed up major.
 
 http://www.overunity.com/9103/magluvins-magnet-motor-mmm-being-released-for-open-source-developement/   Pics vids and details
 
 Well I put it down for a while. I was burned out on it. I was hurting also financially due to putting too much time, thought and energy into the project and neglecting other things at the time. Was also in between jobs for a bit there.
 
 Once I had calmed down from my paranoid state, which seemed to be always, after some months,  I realized that open source was the best thing for any device. I had learned that patents and making money ideas were fruitless. So before rebuilding I posted all of the info on it here as open source. I still have not gotten back to it. Some day. I became attracted to the electronics end of OU. It seemed logical to try for it electronically as the end product of electricity is universal. Making an ou motor only to have to convert it to electricity would not be convenient built into a cell phone. If it can be done electronically, we skip a step in a way.
 
 As for the 555 circuit, like I said, saying it but cant show it is a statement that will be problematic for you, as you can see. ;]  Better not to introduce things that you later cant provide.  Im sayng all of this in the kindest way I can. Please dont take it as an attack in any way. ;]  Im not here to discredit you.  Just help.
 
 I gota get something to eat. Ive only eaten some strawberrys earlier.  Been too busy to eat yet.
 
 Magsy
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 11, 2012, 05:37:56 AM
And, by the way... I've built and tested the current circuit under discussion, using 2n7000 mosfets and a 3-volt battery pack and my Interstate F34 FG and my old HP180 oscilloscope.

The circuit behaves just as expected, oscillates nicely, oscillates more and with higher voltage in the oscillations with the battery TOTALLY DISCONNECTED.... because it's running on the power from the function generator. With the battery in circuit, it lights an LED... in one direction only... when the LED is put in series with the load... or even in parallel with it. This behaviour is consistent across at least 3 orders of magnitude of driving frequency, from tens of Hz to tens of kiloHz. Using a non-contact IR thermometer, I have confirmed that one mosfet does all the switching and heats up to over 110 F, even when the battery is disconnected and the circuit is oscillating off of the FG's stimulus, while the other mosfet stays at room temperature. Varying the FG's DC offset while keeping the same 8-10 V p-p in the square wave, causes the oscillation to shift phase in the output signal, in a neat sort of way.

Groundloops, power from the FG, a whacky circuit.... all add up to minimal drain on the battery, so it lasts a long time, even though the current and voltage readings indicate otherwise. No recharging going on, of course.

I'll be posting a video shortly. Meanwhile.... for those who object to my use of the 2n7000, all I can say is.... show me that there's a significant difference. SHOW ME, don't just postulate it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 11, 2012, 05:45:20 AM
@Mags: No worries, mate. I know you are intellectually honest enough not to delude yourself more than "necessary". And I know you will educate yourself if there's something you're not sure about or don't understand. So I wish you the best of luck.... but I also wish you find a better tree to "bark up" than PMMs. Myself, I think that you've got to rip apart the vacuum to get anything to fall out of it.... so I am fond of rapidly changing very strong electric fields. (Magnetic fields too, but it's a lot easier for the "amateur" to arrange strong electric fields than it is to get strong magnetic fields. I mean really strronnng.) So that's what I do... I rip apart the vacuum and sometimes, interesting things fall out.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 11, 2012, 06:10:39 AM
TK   ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 11, 2012, 06:33:04 AM
Oh yea, to the 3 readers of this thread, get a life. 49300+ reads of 54 pages?

913 reads per page on average.  man, those 3, shame on them 3.  Pitiful.

3 readers. Who is doing that math?  Yes, math. Its a numbers thing. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 07:10:25 AM
Rosemary, are you ever going to understand what's going on around you? No, I was not making any statement in reference to THIS thread. My comment was in reference to supporting FE research in general, which I DO. RTFP.

Magluvin carelessly saw fit to take a comment I made (which he misunderstood) out of context and post it here with mal-intent. So I had to respond HERE...get it?

LOL.  Poynty Point?  Are you ANGRY?  That Mag's did some much needed whistle blowing?  That he tried to aerate your rather dubious agenda?  I'm not sure what RTFP stands for.  Possibly 'Righteous Tantrums from Poynty Point'?  Or 'Read This First Please?' or "Right This For Pete's Sake'?  Actually that would be RTFPS.  So... Maybe - 'Rally The Fools Please'?  or 'Round The First Product'?  The options are endless. 'Reality the First Prize?  No idea.  That's my best shot.  So.  In answer I'd say RTFQ - which stands for 'REFERENCE THE FIRST QUESTION'.  WHY OH WHY - Poynty Point are you ALWAYS on the wrong side of over unity?   :'(   

And if mal-intent - as you put it - AKA - gratuitous 'hate speech' - AKA - 'trolling' - is enough reason to INSTRUCT Harti to 'remove a post' - then I think this particular thread would be 'thread bare'.  LOL.  It is comforting to learn that - contrary to all evidence - you actually support FE research.  I'd love to know on what grounds.  I, personally, don't think there's any such thing.  But that's probably because I've not been trained in a 'standard school'.  Actually I don't think I can claim to be trained in anything at all.  Except maybe Contract Bridge.  But that's because one knows the rules of the game.  You have no rules - liberated as you are - by your anonymity.  Which makes it very easy for you to traduce the likes of Bedini - and, dare I put myself in the same category? - even little old me.   :o 8) :-*

It is some small comfort that you reserve your unreserved 'spite' to blogs that are NOT on public display.  Would that you would show the same circumspection related to my hate blog.   :'( All that MALICE?

BTW (by the way) I'm well aware of why it is you posted on this thread.  It just struck me as being rather ironic that you'd be obliged to defend your over unity interests here.  Which is all that I was trying to reference.  In the light of all those posts of yours Poynty?  I don't think that any readers here would be confused by your actual interests.  And they're patently NOT on the side of over unity.  LOL

Always and ever,
Rosie Posie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 07:27:03 AM
Actually Poynty - IF you want to prove the lie - IF you want to assure us all that you are INDEED seriously researching over unity as claimed in your blog title - OUR.COM - then here's an easy answer.  Get one of those academics who are 'astonished' at your treatise related to the delivery of a negative current flow from a battery supply source - and ask them to adjudicate a small test that Magsy suggested we run.  I'm game.  Boots and All.  Even if it leaves me rather impoverished.  I'll run that test gladly.  And that way we'll all KNOW you as a serious researcher in this particular field.  If it's doable - I solemnly undertake to make that ENTIRE TEST viewable - on line - for the duration.  That way we can all 'check the results'.  How about it Poynty Point?  And Professor Jones?

Again, and always,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 08:42:08 AM
Magsy.  What can I say?  As ever - I'm in awe of your 'integrity'.  Would that we could ALL follow in your footsteps.

I've long given up trying to understand Harti's motives.  His is the ONLY forum that tolerates our claims or even Rossi's claims.  Not that our claims are even in the same league.  But. In their own way - I'm of the opinion that they're likely to be considerably more significant.  But, as ever, that's ONLY my opinion.  The other thing is that Harti - like so many of you - are looking to find this energy in a motorised application.  I'm not in a position to comment.  I believe we may know a way of configuring this.  But it most certainly is NOT in line with any of the configs I've seen on these forums.  Not by Bedini.  Not by anyone.  And Harti's insistence that we're dealing with measurement errors is alarming.  He's basing this on the assumption that we're claiming overunity results and therefore need to prove it.  We're very specifically NOT claiming over unity.  We're alerting our academics to an apparent breach of unity resulting from standard measurement protocols.  The distinction is subtle. Surely you see this?  And then we also need to resolve the fact that there's that positive half of each oscillation.  These points may seem irrelevant.  But they're not.  They're both HUGELY significant.

Please try and get your mind around this Mags.  If our standard measurement protocols have omitted an entirely unused 'source of energy' - or IF counter electromotive force - is REGENERATIVE and NOT simply the result of 'stored energy' - then we're into a NEW AND EXCITING BALLPARK.  And that's what our measurements point to.  In other words - CHECK OUT THE NUMBERS.  They're somewhat UNUSUAL - to put it mildly. 

But either way - if Harti HAS got the right to alter our CLAIM - then, or EVEN THEN - I'm in there - boots and all.  Just make it worth our while.  I'm not about to live my life against the RUDE DEMANDS of all and sundry to PERFORM AS THEY REQUIRE.  What am I?  A servant?  And I'm also rather tired of everyone's reliance on their assumption of my stupidity.  I actually DO SEE that they're all simply sending us on a goose chase to do a whole lot of work that WILL STILL BE DEBATED.   We need to use OPEN SOURCE to better effect.  Right now it's just a parade of ego and nonsense.  And it's refreshing to see that there are those such as you and eatenbyagrue and a few others - that actually are looking for the evidence - beyond all that posturing.  I am too.  I want to do that final test.  But not for my own satisfaction.  For the benefit of over unity.  That's way more important.  And that satisfaction RESTS ON AN EVALUATION BY OUR ACADEMICS.  Right now they won't even engage.

Kindest regards,

Rosie

added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 09:00:39 AM
My dear Tinsel Koala,

When you start answering my questions then I'll start answering yours.  Meanwhile I take it that you're about to show us that we can do without the batteries and just use the function generator to generate that oscillation.  Very intriguing.  We can't seem to manage that trick.  But, if it helps at all - I'll take your word for it.

LOL

From you admirer,
Rosie Posie
 :-*

BTW - do you still sport a moustache? I do hope so.  I've used this to identify you amongst some personalities I'm using in a story book for my grandchildren.  I'm hoping this will be accurate enough for you to sue me.  You'll love the story line.  I'll let you know when I eventually publish it.   :D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 11, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Oh yea, to the 3 readers of this thread, get a life. 49300+ reads of 54 pages?

913 reads per page on average.  man, those 3, shame on them 3.  Pitiful.

3 readers. Who is doing that math?  Yes, math. Its a numbers thing. ;]

Mags

Humm .... you may be right ..... maybe four ?   ;)

 Rosemary hits the "REFRESH" button hundreds of times a day ..... each counting a "NEW" view total.   :o


FuzzyTomCat
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 09:39:42 AM
Humm .... you may be right ..... maybe four ?   ;)

 Rosemary hits the "REFRESH" button hundreds of times a day ..... each counting a "NEW" view total.   :o


FuzzyTomCat
 8)


I got quite excited when I read this.  I immediately tried it.  Reading - 49 828.  Hit the refresh - and SADLY - 49 828.  Not sure that this works Glen.  But if it did - no doubt your concern would have been valid.  And then for the first time you'd have posted something of interest. 

All the best to you.  God knows you need all the help you can get.

Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 11, 2012, 01:44:33 PM
Oh yea, to the 3 readers of this thread, get a life. 49300+ reads of 54 pages?

913 reads per page on average.  man, those 3, shame on them 3.  Pitiful.

3 readers. Who is doing that math?  Yes, math. Its a numbers thing. ;]

Mags

Well I seem to count a troll posting for every reader that enters this thread, now who cant count or do the math? Do you really even think 3 people have read each page 300+ times? All I see is when someone asks a simple question, someone has to jump in to say how Rosemary is wrong and go through their rant.

I never said she was right or wrong, just asked questions and showed a simple program that she could post a circuit with the 555 included if she wished. Maybe then she or I would learn something about the way the circuit works.

Seems to me its none of your business that I or 2 other people are reading this thread- YOUR life is so important that you have to belittle me or others for attempting constructive conversation? The real math is 54 pages-BS=12 pages or so "rounded off"
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 11, 2012, 01:48:38 PM
Humm .... you may be right ..... maybe four ?   ;)

 Rosemary hits the "REFRESH" button hundreds of times a day ..... each counting a "NEW" view total.   :o


FuzzyTomCat
 8)


How does that saying go? The first act of deception is accusing someone else of being deceptive...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 01:53:43 PM
Well I seem to count a troll posting for every reader that enters this thread, now who cant count or do the math? Do you really even think 3 people have read each page 300+ times? All I see is when someone asks a simple question, someone has to jump in to say how Rosemary is wrong and go through their rant.

I never said she was right or wrong, just asked questions and showed a simple program that she could post a circuit with the 555 included if she wished. Maybe then she or I would learn something about the way the circuit works.

Seems to me its none of your business that I or 2 other people are reading this thread- YOUR life is so important that you have to belittle me or others for attempting constructive conversation? The real math is 54 pages-BS=12 pages or so "rounded off"

Flux It - Mags was pointing to the claim by TK, Poynty and Fuzzy that there are only 3 readers here.  He was simply trying to show that this is nonsense.  He, like you and me and most of us here - are rather tired of this sad little observation.  Like all their contributions they have more to do with innuendo and propaganda than with fact.

But Magsy's very much on track.  I assure you.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 11, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
Flux It - Mags was pointing to the claim by TK, Poynty and Fuzzy that there are only 3 readers here.  He was simply trying to show that this is nonsense.  He, like you and me and most of us here - are rather tired of this sad little observation.  Like all their contributions they have more to do with innuendo and propaganda than with fact.

But Magsy's very much on track.  I assure you.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Was not so much speaking directly to Mags as I was making a point in general. All these pages of something besides the topic, and it just goes in circles. Sorry if I offended the wrong person  ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 02:11:19 PM
Was not so much speaking directly to Mags as I was making a point in general. All these pages of something besides the topic, and it just goes in circles. Sorry if I offended the wrong person  ;D

LOL  I'm sure that no-one's offended.  And your points are valid - to a fault.  If ONLY we could keep the thread on topic.  But the benefit - as ever - is that you're hopefully now all seeing how it is that we've been unable to progress this technology on these forums.  I'm of the opinion that to post any significant advancement of technologies on open source - is likely to mitigate against its advancement.  If it's a valid claim it's accompanied by an orchestrated troll attack.  If it's vague or not fully proved - it's tolerated.  Most of us have our own agendas - and if it's for a sincere evaluation of some test results - then our trolls make an easy meal of it.  And - as you see - they dominate the thread contributions.

Ho Hum.  What I do hope that this thread is managing is to point out who the trolls are and the techniques they use.  That may, eventually, help someone.

Kindest regards Flux It.  We may all have a minority voice here - but I assure you - there's a broadening interest in this from our readers.  I know this for a fact.  So.  We're winning.  But in 'baby steps'.  And I'm more than ready to see this to its conclusion.  I think this is the first time on any of my threads that I've managed to outlast the trolls.  And that's only because Harti's tolerated what he actually seems to find intolerable - related to our claim.

God knows.  It's all very difficult.  LOL
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 11, 2012, 04:30:00 PM
 It appears that the involvement of so many highly skilled and knowledgeable people who reject Rosemary's claim of having achieved overunity and a COP = infinity result, is now being accepted as proof that those same people are attempting to suppress a significant technology. This leaves me not only speechless, but without option.

 
From this point on I will not waste a single second of my time on Rosemary Ainslie or her fraudulent claims regarding overunity energy generation. I wish it to be noted that the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide said proof in support of any claims made, this has not been forthcoming at a level of quality compliant with the scientific method or independent reproducibility, but has actually been deliberately avoided at all costs by the RATS, hence the caveats on providing said proof. The game cannot continue if the proof is presented!

 
So all you “believers” have my blessing to attempt to replicate the RATS results, go on try it. Invest your time and money into this project, your knowledge and expertise, and you will get out exactly what you put in. I am confident in stating this.

 
Before you dive headlong into this “technology” have a read through these links and then objectively assess how this information is relevant or not, to Rosemary Ainslie, her circuit and her claims, so that you can make an informed decision.

 
When every single one of you who invests in this, years down the line, breaks down and starts crying in frustration, go crying to Rosemary, not me or any of the others who have tried to help you understand what has gone on. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof)

 
Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) which serves to either support or counter a scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) or hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis). Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and properly documented in accordance with scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science) or social sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences) (see qualitative research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research) and intersubjectivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity)). Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_analysis) of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence)

 
 Scientific method refers to a body of techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_technique) for investigating phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon), acquiring new knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence#cite_note-Goldhaber_2010_page.3D940-0) To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement) evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence#cite_note-1) The Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)

 
Reproducibility is the degree of agreement between measurements or observations conducted on replicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28statistics%29) specimens in different locations by different people. Reproducibility is part of the precision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision) of a test method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_method).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility#cite_note-0)
Reproducibility also refers to the ability of an entire experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) or study to be reproduced, or by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure. The basic idea can be seen in Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle)'s dictum that there is no scientific knowledge of the individual, where the word used for individual in Greek had the connotation of the idiosyncratic, or wholly isolated occurrence. Thus all knowledge, all science, necessarily involves the formation of general concepts and the invocation of their corresponding symbols in language

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction#Retraction_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction#Retraction_in_science)



Retraction


In science, a retraction of a published scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) article indicates that the original article should not have been published and that its data and conclusions should not be used as part of the foundation for future research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research). The common reasons for the retraction of articles are scientific misconduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct) including plagiarism, serious errors, and duplicate/concurrent publishing (self-plagiarism). The retraction may be initiated by the editors of the journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). A lesser withdrawal of content than a full retraction may be labelled a correction.

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

 
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), but does not adhere to a valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), lacks supporting evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence) or plausibility, cannot be reliably (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29) tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#cite_note-definition-0) Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), an over-reliance on confirmation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
 A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28sociology%29) of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#cite_note-Cover_Curd_1998-1) Science is also distinguishable from revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation), theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology), or spirituality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality) in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) research and testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#cite_note-Gould-2) Commonly held beliefs in popular science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science) may not meet the criteria of science.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#cite_note-Pendle-3) "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#cite_note-Pendle-3) Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters

 
Good luck to all you believer's... I hope you find what you are looking for.


 
RM :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 11, 2012, 05:23:48 PM
I agree completely Ape- the point I am making is the constant bashing that goes on as if some people have nothing better to do.

Then after all this time someone says "I built this circuit and surprisingly it oscillates", not even speaking about OU claims just the fact that it in deeds runs when it was not supposed to at all. Maybe someone came up with another variation while experimenting and it did something else too. Maybe someone could use part of the circuit in designing something else and wow that works great!

I keep up on reading the mueller replication thread, and it is very commendable by the people involved and the experimenting they are doing. Always trying something new, improving on things that may never amount to anything. But they are trying and I see no bashing going on, only people working together not against each other.

It does not take much to add a timer or whatever to isolate the circuit, and maybe other modifications also. I would like too see Rosemary propose their way of doing this, as this is what was claimed to work. With this being open source I dont see where that all of the sudden that portion becomes proprietary to a colleague or assistant.

There are plenty that have made their point that this will never work period, but to keep jumping in slinging insults over and over is getting really old.

As I said before I am not taking any sides, just trying to remain objective and provide helpful input if I can. If a person cannot do that then it is as simple as not reading this thread, let alone posting in it.  :-X

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 08:25:04 PM
Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.
.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration
 

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 08:25:31 PM
Now.  You tell me why the only thing more unpopular than me is this technology.  Because I cannot understand it.  Poynty has gone to great lengths to assure all and sundry that it's based on measurement error.  So has Harti.  Yet neither of them are able to show where this error is.  Or where they've defined the source of the error I am able to assure them that this has been dealt with in our paper.  They both know what's in those papers because they both have copies.  And ALL our detractors actively discourage anyone at all from trying this themselves.  And when those such as Groundloop actually start exploring aspects of this - then Poynty rather insultingly cuts in to insist that his own circuit variant be tested.  When Schubert tries to simulate it Poynty does NOTHING to advise him on the required transistor positions.  When genuine interest is getting sparked then EvolvingApe goes to some considerable trouble to discourage ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL.
 
I cannot explain this Flux It.  But here's the thing.  Both Poynty and Professor Jones are on record.  They'll give a prize for proof of over unity.  So.  On that basis we can 'legally' demand an engagement.  And guess what?  No-one's engaging.  And this  - as you pointed out -  is NOT rocket science.  I can prove this by demonstrating the circuit on a one to one.  Or I can prove it on a public demonstration.  In the latter case - then I would require academic approval that the test would be definitive.  Because it will cost me in time and money to organise the required controls and the required supervision.  I KNOW they'll find reason to dismiss this notwithstanding.  But I also KNOW that academics are more intellectually honest.  They WON'T.
 
Dear God.  What more can I do?  Do the 555 test to waste more time.  Argue grounding issues that have been comprehensively addressed.  Argue small variations due to our shunt's inductance - when this is so marginal as to be ridiculous.   We're not talking fractions of a watt.  We're dissipating in excess of 120 watts. 
 
So.  Again.  You tell me what's going on.  Because I really do not know.  I only speak with some considerable authority - and I need only point to the many threads on this technology and its variations - to show you all that there seems to be some overriding need to discredit me - or the technology or BOTH.  And from your reaction to Ape's post - then CLEARLY - their efforts are more effective than even I realised.
 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 11, 2012, 08:30:46 PM
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.

Do you honestly believe that in the simulation, the power supply is not supplying any net energy to the circuit?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 08:35:50 PM
Do you honestly believe that in the simulation, the power supply is not supplying any net energy to the circuit?

I am not interested in the power analysis POYNTY POINT.  I'm interested in the fact that it OSCILLATES AT ALL.  That's what the simulation shows.  And there's no explanation for that oscillation.  NOT IN TERMS OF OUR STANDARD MODEL. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE OSCILLATION.  It's self sustaining.  And it occurs when the battery is disconnected.  It's the oscillation itself that is of interest.   And in REAL LIFE - in actual CONDITIONS OF EXPERIMENT and under conditions of careful switching settings  - then this results in a ZERO DISCHARGE OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 11, 2012, 08:45:47 PM
OK, I suspected you believe that.

Do you know how ludicrous that is?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 11, 2012, 08:47:03 PM
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315070/#msg315070 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315070/#msg315070)   Reply #859 on: Today at 08:25:04 PM

Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.

.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366)    Reply #1121 on: May 05, 2011, 06:44:30 AM

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.
 
BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA) (confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle, MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I'll be a "HUCKLEBERRY" ...... ;)

ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -

All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - :o


FuzzyTomCat
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 08:51:43 PM
Well I'll be a "HUCKLEBERRY" ...... ;)
ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -
All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - :o
FuzzyTomCat
 8)

EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 11, 2012, 09:17:46 PM
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314302/#msg314302     Reply #725 on: March 01, 2012, 06:57:34 AM

Rosemary,
where is the circuit diagramm of the 555 timer test ?

Did I miss this ?

Please post again the links to it and to your latest PDF papers...
Thanks-


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314353/#msg314353     Reply #728 on: March 02, 2012, 02:06:48 AM

Harti,

Again.  The circuit is per out schematic included in our paper.  I'll see if I can download again.  The differences are ONLY in the applied signal.  Not from a function generator - but a 555.  And

there is only 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2.   Do you get it yet?  If not, then let me know.  If you want a circuit diagram of a 555 - there are many available on the internet.  They all work - with varying

levels of efficiency.  THEN.  Where you see 'load' RL1 - just picture - in your mind's eye - that we've got a battery operated solder iron in place of the element resistor that we reference in our

paper.  And OBVIOUSLY the shunt resistor.  This is still 0.25 Ohms ... I think.  Actually - it may have been 0.2 Ohms.  Can't actually remember.

I'm not sure that I ever did download the waveforms.  And I'm not about to wade through those multiple pages of 'flamed' threads to find them.  I do, however, have some downloads where this

was tested from our own batteries.  I'll try and find them.   

About our papers.  I have sent you copies of these per email.  Have you lost these?  If so, again.  Let me know.  I'll send them again for your private perusal.  I've been advised NOT to publish

these here until such time as they're published as reviewed papers.  Which is immanent.

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96114/    circuit schematic for Harti.png

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314419/#msg314419    Reply #735 on: March 03, 2012, 01:42:19 AM

Rosemary.it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer,otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to yourcircuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.

Also your 2 PDF files did not contain any 555 circuit, just your old outdated circuit with thefunction generator and the ground loop and measurement problems...

Also no battery status tests .

For a real test you need to see the status of your batteries before and after the tests....


So try to run these tests, document them in detail and then come back here...all other postings without doing new tests are just wasted time...

Did you yet met GotoLuc in South Africa ?
Maybe he can help you setup the measurements the right way.
He also knows how to post it to youtube.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people just cant read .......

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg309442/#msg309442  Reply #40 on: January 09, 2012, 03:09:25 PM
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766   Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus (PDF - download)


Quotes from Stefan Hartmann - ( owner OU.com - Moderator )

Rosemary. it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer, otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your circuit and how it was driven ? :o

Also your 2 PDF files did not contain any 555 circuit, just your old outdated circuit with the function generator and the ground loop and measurement problems... :o

So try to run these tests, document them in detail and then come back here... all other postings without doing new tests are just wasted time... :o



FuzzyTomCat
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 09:36:42 PM
Sorry.  It was a duplicate post.
I deleted it

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 09:37:58 PM

Guys, I'm posting this again because Glen Lettenmaier is trying to get this post out of public focus.  The trick is to dominate the page with any and every irrelevancy in order that you pass over any significant claim.  I can't do this repeatedly - but hopefully this will help.

He can't manage an original post so he simply borrows what he can from wherever he can find it.  What a horrible man.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.
.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 09:40:33 PM
And then this last bit.

Now.  You tell me why the only thing more unpopular than me is this technology.  Because I cannot understand it.  Poynty has gone to great lengths to assure all and sundry that it's based on measurement error.  So has Harti.  Yet neither of them are able to show where this error is.  Or where they've defined the source of the error I am able to assure them that this has been dealt with in our paper.  They both know what's in those papers because they both have copies.  And ALL our detractors actively discourage anyone at all from trying this themselves.  And when those such as Groundloop actually start exploring aspects of this - then Poynty rather insultingly cuts in to insist that his own circuit variant be tested.  When Schubert tries to simulate it Poynty does NOTHING to advise him on the required transistor positions.  When genuine interest is getting sparked then EvolvingApe goes to some considerable trouble to discourage ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL.
 
I cannot explain this Flux It.  But here's the thing.  Both Poynty and Professor Jones are on record.  They'll give a prize for proof of over unity.  So.  On that basis we can 'legally' demand an engagement.  And guess what?  No-one's engaging.  And this  - as you pointed out -  is NOT rocket science.  I can prove this by demonstrating the circuit on a one to one.  Or I can prove it on a public demonstration.  In the latter case - then I would require academic approval that the test would be definitive.  Because it will cost me in time and money to organise the required controls and the required supervision.  I KNOW they'll find reason to dismiss this notwithstanding.  But I also KNOW that academics are more intellectually honest.  They WON'T.
 
Dear God.  What more can I do?  Do the 555 test to waste more time?  Argue grounding issues that have been comprehensively addressed?  Argue small variations due to our shunt's inductance - when this is so marginal as to be ridiculous?   We're not talking fractions of a watt.  We're dissipating in excess of 120 watts. 
 
So.  Again.  You tell me what's going on.  Because I really do not know.  I only speak with some considerable authority - and I need only point to the many threads on this technology and its variations - to show you all that there seems to be some overriding need to discredit me - or the technology or BOTH.  And from your reaction to Ape's post - then CLEARLY - their efforts are more effective than even I realised.
 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 10:12:45 PM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366)    Reply
 #1121 on:
May 05, 2011, 06:44:30 AM

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.

BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA)
(confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical
engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their
hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at
 least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment
other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via
 SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my
 rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in
 a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was
withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And
 the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000All culminating in
our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had
15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP
 INFINITY -
and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle,
 MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat
disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I
 think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Actually I've just gone through this post.  It's actually really interesting.  At least it shows the range of engineers who have seen some of these
claims of ours.  Thanks to Glen for reminding me of this.  Albeit unintended.  LOL.  And NOTA BENE GLEN - NOT AN EXPERT
AMONGST THEM - with the entire exception of Professor Green - who REFUSED to look into the matter further - stating PUBLICLY that the results
were PROBABLY due to measurement errors.  Remember?  That's the same as Poynty's point.  If it weren't quite so sad it'd be funny.

Kindest as ever,
R
Just edited this to get it all onto one page.  Glen's trying to get this thread entirely unreadable.
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 11, 2012, 11:27:30 PM
  " BUMP " Partial post from Rosemary ...... complete post shown ......
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315070/#msg315070 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../msg315070/#msg315070)   Reply #859 on: Today at 08:25:04 PM

Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.

.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366)    Reply #1121 on: May 05, 2011, 06:44:30 AM

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.
 
BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA) (confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle, MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I'll be a "HUCKLEBERRY" ...... ;)

ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -

All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - :o


FuzzyTomCat
 8)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


RE-PRINT of ORIGINAL
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 11, 2012, 11:41:14 PM

ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -

All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - :o

EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 11, 2012, 11:50:46 PM
EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R

Yes, I do a Engineer is a College graduate or Expert

 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 12:03:35 AM
Hi to whome it may concern   
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/9687/self-runner-ns-coil-pulse-motor-live-video-stream-its-been-going-for-months/msg260131/#msg260131   Reply #523 on: October 08, 2010, 01:43:42 PM


Guys this subject is being 'trashed' on another forum.  I thought I'd just post over some of the arguments against this and my reply. 


If you were to take this argument to its logical conclusion - then - in terms of this a natural diamond would have less energy than an artificial diamond.  There is no more or less potential energy in a lump of pure copper than there is in a mixed aggregate of the same weight.  Nor is more potential energy added to the mix as a result of applied heat or galvanisation or anything else.  Mainstream claim that the energy from mass is from the atomic mass.  It's just that in a refined state - it's likely to be more useable as required. Bear in mind that the galvanic interaction does not compromise the mass of either the copper or the iron.  Theoretically, they'll be there - into infinity.  So.  Also theoretically - if there's an induction process going on in Laser's rig - which clearly there is, then that too could be there for infinity.

But this argument also has to be seen in context.  Laser claims that the rotor can turn with distilled water.  If so, then there is no 'salt bridge' required for the 'galvanic effect' - which is battery related.  It probably just works better with the addition of salt.  Correspondingly, and confusingly, Bill claims that his rig works best if the sand is dry.  In which case one could perhaps argue a 'salt bridge'.  But in both instances one only needs to encase the entire coil in some kind of sealed condition - like a sealed battery - and either the slightly moist sand - or the slightly moist atmosphere around the coil - would make both the sand and/or the atmosphere - a third element in that rig.  Unlike a sealed battery it would never go flat.  That's got to be clean green - and virtually, dare I say it,  'perpetual'.

Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules.  We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.

The truth of the matter is that the concept of a battery supply source also carries the concept of a depletable source of energy.  That much has yet to be proven in either Bill's rig or in Lasersabers.  Frankly I think they're both carving out some interesting history for us all.

Regards
Rosemary
edit.  Sorry the math was out.   I've amended.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules.  We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.
 

Anyone like to "CHECK" the math shown above in "GREEN"  .......


FuzzyTomCat
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 12:24:47 AM
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.

Please explain why you have included these two points and what is implied by listing them.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 02:14:28 AM
Please explain why you have included these two points and what is implied by listing them.

Hello Poynty Point,

Not sure what you're asking.  Is there something there that's ambiguous?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 02:44:27 AM
Hello Poynty Point,

Not sure what you're asking.  Is there something there that's ambiguous?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Yes,

I would like to know why you have included these two points and what is implied by each.

The question is clear enough isn't it?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 02:57:19 AM
Yes,

I would like to know why you have included these two points and what is implied by listing them.

The question is clear enough isn't it?

Poynty Point?  Just read the follow up post.  That's the reason I included these observations.  Still not sure of your question.
I'm a little bit concerned that this could go on and on.  LOL.  And BTW (By the way)  I'd also be grateful if you too could answer
some questions I've put to you.  That way we'd be co-operating with each other.  Which would be a really welcome change.

Nice to see that you're still so interested in all this.  Are you able to find an academic to endorse the protocols for that draw down
test?  That would be really nice.

Kindest regards Poynty Point.  And please extend my regards to Professor Jones.  I haven't heard from him at all - since I challenged
him for those coins.  Hopefully he's still interested in checking our claim.

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 03:06:45 AM
Yes, I do a Engineer is a College graduate or Expert

 8)

Not actually Glen.  One only becomes an expert with a Doctoral award.  Anything short of that simply implies competence.
Our experts would be shocked to think that their qualifications are no better than a graduate's.

Regards,
Rosie Pose 

edited a personal pronoun.  LOL
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 03:10:54 AM
Poynty Point?  Just read the follow up post.  That's the reason I included these observations.  Still not sure of your question.
I do not know to what you are referring. I'd be grateful if you re-posted your response to my question, specifically dealing with those last two points I mentioned.

Quote
Nice to see that you're still so interested in all this.  Are you able to find an academic to endorse the protocols for that draw down
test?  That would be really nice.
I do not personally know any academics (that I can recall), and I have not pursued any. And I have no intention to.

Quote
Kindest regards Poynty Point.  And please extend my regards to Professor Jones.  I haven't heard from his at all - since I challenged
him for those coins.  Hopefully he's still interested in checking our claim.
I would suggest if you want to get the attention of Steven Jones, you send him a PM. If he does not wish to respond to you, then that is his decision, and I will not try to persuade him otherwise.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 03:30:04 AM
I do not know to what you are referring. I'd be grateful if you re-posted your response to my question, specifically dealing with those last two
points I mentioned.

LOL  No Poynty Point.  I'll pass if you don't mind.  I've already posted it over twice.  And I think there's enough of my posts littering this thread
now that Glen's getting into his full stride.  If only he had the ability to propose an original observation.  AND if only he could keep his posts to
the Thread size.  As it is - I'm inclined to suppose that he's trying to detract from this thread.  Surely not?

I do not personally know any academics (that I can
 recall), and I have not pursued any. And I have no intention to.
I thought you may have a tame academic in tow - as you seemed to make liberal reference to his reactions when you detailed that novel take on
a battery delivering a negative current flow.  I recall that he was 'astonished' I think was your description.  Perhaps that was just some kind of
literary license to lend you some kind of authority?  Not sure.  In any event.  I'm actually going to see if I can perhaps rally a couple of
academics myself.  But I'll wait for publication of the paper.  That way there's likely to be more cause for engagement.

I would suggest if your want to get the attention of Steven Jones, you send him a PM. If he does not wish to respond to you, then that is his decision, and I will not try to persuade him otherwise.
I'll defer this too - until I get that public demo under way.  And, if you don't mind - I'd like to reserve rights here.  I'm hoping that
publication won't be too far away now.   I'll keep you posted - in any event.

Take good care Poynty Point.  Your efforts in this over unity drive have been surprisingly counter productive.  Thank God.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 03:41:00 AM

LOL  No Poynty Point.  I'll pass if you don't mind.  I've already posted it over twice.
Alright, could you post a link to your response please? Or would you rather I guess which post it is?

Quote
I thought you may have a tame academic in tow - as you seemed to make liberal reference to his reactions when you detailed that novel take on a battery delivering a negative current flow.  I recall that he was 'astonished' I think was your description.  Perhaps that was just some kind of literary license to lend you some kind of authority?
I have no idea what or to whom you are referring.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 12, 2012, 03:41:54 AM
Wow those 3 readers are busy.  Over 1890 reads since last night.
Those busy little buggers.   ;]

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 03:42:32 AM
Rosemary Ainslie claims:

Quote
NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Rosemary, do you STAND BY THIS CLAIM, or do you not? Are your numbers and your conclusions accurate?

Let me repeat again: If Rosemary Ainslie says that this claim above is CORRECT AND TRUE.... then she is engaging in clear scientific misconduct by continuing to claim excess performance from the batteries when a correct calculation based on her data shows no such thing.

If on the other hand Rosemary admits that it is WRONG and NOT TRUE, then she needs to retract it and publish a correction.

(And in Fuzzy's example where Rosemary is quoted above..... 0.2 Watts is indeed a Ridiculous power dissipation figure for a pulse motor rotor.... ridiculously HIGH. A decent design should be able to run on a tenth of that or even less, as many of us showed during the Steorn Orbo replication days.)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 03:54:01 AM
Wow those 3 readers are busy.  Over 1890 reads since last night.
Those busy little buggers.   ;]

Golly.  I'm not that good at math - but by my own rather shakey reckoning I'd say that 1890 is somewhat
more than 4.  And nota bene - one of those master mathematicians is challenging me on my own math.
That's a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'.  What ever next?  They've got a lot of explaining to do.

 :o 8) :o 8)

Take care Mags. 
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 12, 2012, 04:33:12 AM
 ;)   Im waiting for the....

"And to all of the nearly 2000 readers per day....."

To show up.   :o

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: AbbaRue on March 12, 2012, 05:16:22 AM
                        @Rosemary:
Have you ever built and tested other variations of this circuit that also worked? 
If so, could you post a link to were I can find the circuit diagram of it. 

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 06:53:29 AM
Howdy reading members and guests,

The schematic of the proposed COP>INFINITY device has again been referenced multiple times that shows incorrectly connected Mosfets !!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314581/#msg314581 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314581/#msg314581)    Reply #766 on: March 05, 2012, 05:56:37 AM

And guys,

Here's another schematic that may be of assistance.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

1 circuit schema for Flux It and Schubert - per Poynty.png       (same as)     Simulation Schematic1.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html)        Simulation Schematic1.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A modified schematic of Simulation Schematic1.jpg showing the IRFPG50 Mosfet diagram including "internal body diodes" .......

RA_5_Mosfet_Switching_Circuit_Analysis_011_.JPG   (for Mosfet (D) drain (S) source (G) gate example only)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excepted correctly shown as built schematic of the proposed  COP>INFINITY device .......

forMileEverSoHigh_fig1png_thumb.png
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


These schematics provided by Rosemary below .....

1 circuit schema for Flux It and Schubert - per Poynty.png

Simulation Schematic1.jpg

Shows these incorrect Mosfet connections ....

Q1 (G) gate going to Q2-Q5 (S) source
Q1 (S) source going to + Function Generator

Q2-Q5 (G) gate going to + Function Generator
Q2-Q5 (S) source going to Q1 (G) gate and Rshunt +


FuzzyTomCat
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 07:02:19 AM
                        @Rosemary:
Have you ever built and tested other variations of this circuit that also worked? 
If so, could you post a link to were I can find the circuit diagram of it.

Hello AbbaRue.  Actually we've built many variations.  But if you want to know the 'penultimate' it's detailed in this paper on Glen Lettenmaeir's Scribd file. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)

Under normal circumstances I would have been able to post you to a more accurate paper on this on my own Scribd File - but Glen ALLEGED to the Scrbid authorities that this was EXCLUSIVELY HIS OWN WORK.  I was thereby subjected to the curious irony of being accused of 'plagiarism' of my own work.  And when I objected - their legal department resisted any kind of remedial action - and threatening - further - to ban me from using Scribd.  LOL.  Glen never wrote one sentence of that paper.  And through every subsequent banned thread he's been trying to aver that he never even did a replication.  Confusing - when that's what the paper states.  And more confusing still - in that IF Glen is claiming this as his OWN WORK - then he's also denying that its a replication.  It is my opinion that Glen planned to usurp ownership of that circuit and champion it as the 'discoverer'.  Not that I care one way or the other.  BUT.  He then went public denying that there was any benefit at all.  Now perhaps you understand the implications of all those 'hate posts' of his.  He does, indeed, wish me and the technology both - DEAD.

Surprisingly there's another thread there http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/7463-dark-energy-new-scienced-rosemary-ainslie.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/7463-dark-energy-new-scienced-rosemary-ainslie.html) which I was not allowed to post on - that had pages and pages of work detailed where Glen Lettenmaier and Harvey Gramm both consistently denied any previously claimed benefits.  They ALLEGED that they'd MISTAKENLY assumed to have achieved any coefficient of performance greater than 1.  Those posts have ALL been deleted and it's now used exclusively as a 'hate' blog against me for Ashtweth Palise's, Cat Lady's and Glen's personal indulgence.  I'm not sure if the owners are aware of this corruption.  But if they are then they must not be surprised at the loss of readership on Energetic Forum.  It seems to be losing it's credibility with the public.  More's the pity because that's the safe harbour of Bedini's work - and it's my opinion that Bedini's contribution to OU has been significant.

In any event, AbbaRue.  It's possibly easier to set up this experiment.  If you google my name you'll see plenty of reference to those that replicated that waveform.  It was also a resonating number.  But less definitive than this new generation sample.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 07:23:14 AM
For some reason Glen first included then omitted - this sketched diagram showing the Q-array.  If anyone wants to check it out - this is the actual method of attachment for those resistors.  And I wonder if I could caution you all to discount the most of Glen's posts.  They dominate each page - intentionally - and yet are all designed to mislead you.  That is for those of you who are trying to set up your experiments here. 

Hopefully they'll download.  I've copied it off Groundloop's copy which was considerably more readable than my own.  Thanks again Groundloop.  I seriously regret that you're not around to guide us all out of this quagmire.  But I also respect your decisions.  And may I add that I'm well aware of your efforts into new research on OUR.com - and sorry to see that this has now stopped.  Perhaps one day you'll give us an update on this valuable work.  I, for one, am in awe of your expertise.

Kindest regards to you all
Rosemary. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 07:29:16 AM
And here's the second diagram.  Hopefully that helps.  And if any of you are clever enough to apply this to your own sims - then that would be a really quick and easy path to exploring that oscillation.  I'll try and explain more about the significance when I can squeeze in between Glen Lettenmaier's posts.  He's trying to take over this discussion.  And it's NOT to advance this study.  More's the pity.

Kindest again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:33:28 AM
Is this RIGHT, Rosemary, or is it WRONG?

quoting Rosemary Ainslie:
Quote
NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Right, or Wrong?

Tell us, Rosemary. You made the claim, you cited the numbers and performed the calculations upon which your claim is based...... now tell us whether it's RIGHT OR WRONG.


Is a Joule really a Watt per Second??

"In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating." This is a FALSE CLAIM, based on your wrong calculations.





Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 07:37:42 AM
Is this RIGHT, Rosemary, or is it WRONG?

quoting Rosemary Ainslie:
Right, or Wrong?

Tell us, Rosemary. You made the claim, you cited the numbers and performed the calculations upon which your claim is based...... now tell us whether it's RIGHT OR WRONG.


Is a Joule really a Watt per Second??

"In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating." This is a FALSE CLAIM, based on your wrong calculations.

And so it goes guys.   :'( At least we now know who are the protagonists and who the activists in this drive to over unity.  Hopefully the day will come when these  'protagonists' for want of a more respectable title -  will be accountable for their well rehearsed skills at flaming these threads of mine.

Again, regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:45:36 AM
An open letter to Stefan Hartmann:

Stefan: I have repeatedly shown how Rosemary Ainslie's claim is based on incorrect math and incorrect understanding of power and energy units and their relationships. I have cited her own words and shown specifically where and how her calculations have been done incorrectly. The correct calculations, based on her own data, show that the claim that she makes is FALSE. I have asked her to either justify her calculations and show that she is correct and I am wrong, or to correct her calculations and RETRACT her claim of overunity performance and her application for the various prizes that you and Prof. Jones are offering.
The fact that she refuses to do either of these things, yet allows the claim to stand uncorrected in spite of the manifest fatal errors, shows that she is engaging in wilful scientific misconduct. The fact that you are allowing this claim to stand, unchallenged and uncorrected, indicates a certain lack of rigor on your own part. I believe that you have sufficient understanding of mathematics and energy/power calculations to see for yourself, by reading carefully and performing your own calculations, that her claim is unsupported by her data.
I sincerely hope that you consider the effect on the FE community that results from allowing FALSE CLAIMS to stand without correction.
Regards--
TinselKoala
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:48:10 AM
And so it goes guys.   :'( At least we now know who are the protagonists and who the activists in this drive to over unity.  Hopefully the day will come when these  'protagonists' for want of a more respectable title -  will be accountable for their well rehearsed skills at flaming these threads of mine.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

Right, or wrong, Rosemary? ANSWER THE QUESTION. Go ahead..... make me look stupid by PROVING ME WRONG on this matter.

"Do the math." 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 07:50:34 AM
Right, or wrong, Rosemary? ANSWER THE QUESTION. Go ahead..... make me look stupid by PROVING ME WRONG on this matter.

"Do the math."

I have REPEATEDLY answered this.  And I will not do so again.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 07:57:02 AM
An open letter to Stefan Hartmann:

Stefan: I have repeatedly shown how Rosemary Ainslie's claim is based on incorrect math and incorrect understanding of power and energy units and their relationships. I have cited her own words and shown specifically where and how her calculations have been done incorrectly. The correct calculations, based on her own data, show that the claim that she makes is FALSE. I have asked her to either justify her calculations and show that she is correct and I am wrong, or to correct her calculations and RETRACT her claim of overunity performance and her application for the various prizes that you and Prof. Jones are offering.
The fact that she refuses to do either of these things, yet allows the claim to stand uncorrected in spite of the manifest fatal errors, shows that she is engaging in wilful scientific misconduct. The fact that you are allowing this claim to stand, unchallenged and uncorrected, indicates a certain lack of rigor on your own part. I believe that you have sufficient understanding of mathematics and energy/power calculations to see for yourself, by reading carefully and performing your own calculations, that her claim is unsupported by her data.
I sincerely hope that you consider the effect on the FE community that results from allowing FALSE CLAIMS to stand without correction.
Regards--
TinselKoala

And Guys,

When TK relies on an admitted 'miscalculation' to encourage Harti to ban me - then you know we're looking at a crisis of concern.  The 'trolling' is getting frantic.  Go figger. 

Again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:57:06 AM
I have REPEATEDLY answered this.  And I will not do so again.

Rosemary

Nowhere do I detect an answer to the questions I have asked about your calculations and your statement that a Joule is a Watt per Second. But presumably you mean to say this:

"YES, I stand by my claim and my calculations as presented in the quote. And a Joule is a Watt per Second."

Is that a fair statement of your position, or not?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:59:40 AM
And Guys,

When TK relies on an admitted 'miscalculation' to encourage Harti to ban me - then you know we're looking at a crisis of concern.  The 'trolling' is getting frantic.  Go figger. 

Again,
Rosemary

Where did you "admit" to a miscalculation in the quote? Don't you realize that your "miscalculation", when corrected, INVALIDATES YOUR CLAIM? Are you admitting then, that your claim is invalid?

Good. We've finally gotten somewhere. I expect you to make a clear retraction, in so many words.

And where do I encourage Stefan to ban you? I want him to make you TELL THE TRUTH and ADMIT YOUR ERRORS, for a change. Banning you would be too easy.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 08:06:29 AM
"BUMP"

Obviously Rosemary doesn't get it even when spelled out in the Quote below and is a done deal ..... the evidence is shown by me in "COLOR" even a child could understand.

Rant all you want Rosemary everything to and including e-mails from Scribid, IEEE, Tektronix and others implicating you with nothing but proof and facts ...... not Rosemary's fictional delusions.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314745/#msg314745   Reply #791 on: March 07, 2012, 06:29:21 PM

Sorry to the three readers, I'm here to give Rosemary the "PRIZE"  she so deserves and demands ....

No no no .... not one of money, I do not yield to false Over Unity demands!!!!

One of acknowledgement !!!

Rosemary Ainslie has won the most prestigious of all and will be featured this month at the grand opening of http://www.OpenSourceResearchandDevelopment.org (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/) this month !!!

She will have her own folder in the Over Unity Scams and Shams !!! Rosemary will have every document in existence from her beginning starting with the four (4) Patent Applications she made as the "INVENTOR" of electronic circuits until the NERD circuit today, including forum postings, e-mail correspondence, Rosemary's self made news articles and Quantum article plus forum postings and blog excerpts.

SO ...... congratulations Rosemary on you having the longest running fraudulent Over Unity scam going for over ten (10) years and the well deserved "PRIZE" you are going to get like it or not you "WON" !!!!

Well all .... don't miss the grand opening of the new NON Profit "Open Source Research and Development" site which includes a 24/7 "LIVE" broadcast feed w/ chat room http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment) ( not a forum ) we will be featuring devices from the inventors or producers eventually and hopefully from around the world.


FuzzyTomCat
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 08:09:33 AM
Where did you "admit" to a miscalculation in the quote? Don't you realize that your "miscalculation", when corrected, INVALIDATES YOUR CLAIM? Are you admitting then, that your claim is invalid?

Good. We've finally gotten somewhere. I expect you to make a clear retraction, in so many words.

And where do I encourage Stefan to ban you? I want him to make you TELL THE TRUTH and ADMIT YOUR ERRORS, for a change. Banning you would be too easy.

You so wish this TK.  Our claim is detailed in our paper.  That has nothing to do with anything about battery duration or battery draw downs.  The ONLY battery claim that I'm prepared to make - definitively - is when there's a test designed for this.  Then I'll engage.  Do you EVER read anything other than your own posts? 

And yes.  It is INEVITABLE that the kind of posts that you and Glen Lettenmaier are posting are designed to wreck this thread and then get me banned.  Do you really think that no-one realises this?  Especially when your reliance on these techniques have managed it in the past?  IF Harti bans me from this thread - then it will be clear evidence that NONE OF YOU actually want to explore proof of over unity.  Because that is what we claim.  And it's based on MEASURED EVIDENCE ONLY.  NOTHING TO DO WITH BATTERY PERFORMANCE.

Again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 12, 2012, 08:20:16 AM
Nowhere do I detect an answer to the questions I have asked about your calculations and your statement that a Joule is a Watt per Second. But presumably you mean to say this:

"YES, I stand by my claim and my calculations as presented in the quote. And a Joule is a Watt per Second."

Is that a fair statement of your position, or not?


Come on, she obviously meant that a watt is a joule per second.  With all you guys bashing her all the time, it is an understandable mistake, as it is stressful to try to defend one's work against people who just want to bash it.


Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it?  Just let her experiment in peace.  I get it, you do not like her invention.  I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure.  But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 08:23:18 AM
And just to get some sanity back into these altercations.  Here's the thing.  It is ENTIRELY thanks to this 'flaming' that my previous claims about this are validated.  LOL.  There's always some exploitable value even in this level of traducement.

But guys - we most certainly DO have an exploitable technology - and it most certainly IS showing evidence of an INFINITE COP.  And I will most certainly do that battery draw down test to prove this.  But I need to wait for the publication of our paper.  Not too far away.  And then I hope to conclude this thread with - a posting of both papers - and a live streaming of that final battery draw down test.  And it will, most certainly, include the protocols defined by our experts - academic or otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 08:36:53 AM
Rosemary seems to think that her "miscalculation" is trivial. Let me break it down, since the gist may have been lost by this time.

First, she calculates the energy content of her batteries based on the amp-hour rating:
Quote
I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
Nothing too objectionable here; so there are something over 10 million Joules available in the batteries if fully charged.

Now.... let's look at her calculation of the energy used in the test.
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
The definition of a calorie, in Joules. 4.18 Joules PER calorie. Fine so far.
Quote
We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.
Now we begin to run into difficulty. Start temperature "ambient" is 16 C. Water amount "a little under" 900 grams. Call it 900 for the sake of the calculations. It took 90 minutes to get to 82 degrees from 16? Or was the water heated up faster and then held at 82 degrees for some time until 90 minutes had elapsed? In an insulated container, I hope. Let's not quibble about whether you can have liquid water at 104 degrees in an unpressurized container, or worry about the fact that 104-82 is 22, not 20. So we've taken 900 grams of water from 16 degrees to 82 degrees in 90 minutes, then from 82 degrees to 104 degrees in a further 10 minutes. OK? Ok.
Quote
Joules = 1 watt per second.
This is completely backwards and wrong. One Joule = one Watt-second. One Watt = one Joule PER second. And here is one of the major conceptual errors that has nothing to do with "miscalculation" and which MUST be understood by Rosemary if she ever hopes to get power and energy calculations right.
Quote
So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.
Now the fun begins. So. Do the math. You've raised 900 grams of water by 66 degrees C. That takes 900 x 66 = 59400 calories, or 4.18 x 59400 = 248292 Joules. THERE IS NO "PER SECOND" to be put in here; the time element does not enter in at this point. It took about 250000 Joules to heat the water in the first stage.
Quote
Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.
Same mistake again, plus another one. You now have taken 900 grams of water at 82 degrees and raised it by 22 degrees to boil at "104" degrees, for a further input of 22 x 900 = 19800 calories or 19800 x 4.18 = 82764 Joules. Again, the time does not enter into the calculation. And by using "88" instead of 22 in your calculation you are adding in the previous quantity.... so when you do your final addition below you are using the same quantity TWICE.
Quote
Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
Adding the CORRECT two values, you should have gotten 331056 Joules, which is the energy required to raise 900 grams of water from 16 degrees C to 104 degrees C (without boiling).
900 x 88 x 4.18 = 331056.... a third of a million Joules, compared to your figure of 25.6 MILLION.
Quote
All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.
As we now can clearly see.... the claim is WRONG, by a factor of about 75. In other words, not only did the battery not outperform its "watt hour rating"... but the battery could have performed THIRTY or more identical tests before it showed any discharge by your no-load voltage measurements.

A mere "miscalculation" or a profound misunderstanding of mathematics and power measurements? Let the readers be the judges.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 08:47:04 AM

Come on, she obviously meant that a watt is a joule per second.  With all you guys bashing her all the time, it is an understandable mistake, as it is stressful to try to defend one's work against people who just want to bash it.


Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it?  Just let her experiment in peace.  I get it, you do not like her invention.  I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure.  But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.

It should be clear to you by now that it was not an "understandable mistake", it is actually her sincere belief that a Joule = one Watt per second... since that's how she calculates. She continually makes these "mistakes" and bases her claims on them.

And as for  the invention and schematics being "out there"..... have you done your homework? Do you know the history of fuzzytomcat, .99, and me, with regards to Rosemary's "invention" and "schematics"? I suggest you do a little research on our history with this topic. You can start by looking at my YouTube channel and searching for the obvious terms.

And please.... build her circuits and test them for yourself. How's that for an attempt at suppression? BUILD AND TEST THEM YOURSELF.

You answered my power and energy problem correctly.... that's a good start.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 09:55:04 AM
Guys here's a little detective story for you all.

Chapter 1. 
I repeatedly assure everyone in post after post - that I'm more than willing to engage in a battery draw down test.  But not unless there's explicit acknowledgement that those results will then constitute PROOF.  The only way to get this is to engage the active jurisdiction of some experts.  And by expert - Glen - I mean - by EXPERTS.

That challenge is duly rewarded by Glen Lettenmaier and others flaming my thread to death.  That thread is then locked and I'm banned.  Worst still - Harti threatens to DELETE my hard work.  I protest.  He agrees to leave the thread in tact.  But I'm still banned.

Chapter 2.
THEN.  I'm re-instated.  I'm allowed to start a new thread related to new work.  But circumstances over take us all.  Rossi has developed his E-cat.  I'm obliged to concede that this is more 'to the point' than our own technology - as his is immediately applicable at heavy duty wattage.   I do the decent thing - admit to this cold fusion priority - and let my own thread lapse.

Then I see a familiar pattern in the 'sledging' or 'trolling' of yet more claimants - on Poynty's forum.  I am now more than an little angered - as they're using the same ploys that they used against me.  Ramset is running around trying to rally TK of all people to adjudicate in a poor Serbian Professor's claim to having achieved over unity.  I realise that I have a MISSION.  I need to alert all the readers here to the AGENDAs that follow every unequivocal claim to over unity.  I decide the best way to do this is to challenge Poynty and Professor AND INDEED HARTI - to their prizes for proof of over unity.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 09:55:59 AM
Chapter 3
With this purpose in mind I re-open my thread.  In the fullness of time Magsy proposes a battery draw down test.  I reference the fact that I'm more than happy to engage in this.  Ponty states - wtf?  I'm paraphrasing here.  He asks - Why didn't you propose this before?  I said I DID.  I told you that -  in post after post.   I'm on record.  More than willing to engage in a battery draw down test.  But not unless there's explicit acknowledgement that those results will then constitute PROOF.  The only way to get this is to engage the active jurisdiction of some experts.  And - again.  By expert - Glen - I mean - by EXPERTS.
 
Poynty still alleges that that I've never ever, ever proposed this before.  I dip into my posts and find the first reference.  There it is.  Unequivocal proof that I HAVE.  BUT.  That post, - unfortunately - references a math error that has been addressed in that previously LOCKED THREAD. The fact is that there's also this proof of accepting a battery draw down challenge.  Which belies Poynty's claim that I've NEVER BEFORE PROPOSED THIS.  It's ignored.  LOL. The only thing that everyone shouts about is that I've made a math error.  TK leads the attack.  I immediately answer him.  I  point out in an immediate follow up post that it was INDEED an error.  Freely acknowledged.  THEN AGAIN.  My thread is locked.  I'm left floundering.  And I can do nothing to assert my challenge for Poynty's prizes. 
 
Chapter 4.
THEN.  Time passes.  Posts are posted.  Pages are turned.  But in the background strange things are afoot. Harti allows me my voice again.  I can post on my own thread. 
 
Meanwhile that all important admission of error - that thing that is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than any proof that I've been trying to engage in a battery draw down test since forever.  That apparent lack of an admission of error becomes the FULL FOCUS FOR TK. And  TK's NOTHING if not an opportunist.  He CHARGES IN.  Post after post after post challenging me to EXPLAIN AN ERROR THAT CONSTITUTED MENDACITY FRAUD - INABILITY TO ADMIT TO ERROR - FINAL PROOF THAT WE HAVE NO CLAIM. NAME IT.  It was all there.   
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 09:56:34 AM
Chapter 5
I - being somewhat more trusting than is actually appropriate - assume that TK is - like all of you are - aware of my early admission of error. Then TK - who is well aware of the fact that the admission - goes on a veritable rampage of DEMAND.  Admit you're wrong Rosemary. And with it admit that your claims are fallacious.  And with it admit that you really need to WITHDRAW ANY CLAIM TO HAVING ACHIEVED OVER UNITY.  He goes further.  he then advises HARTI in an OPEN LETTER - that HARTI MUST NOW DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
 
And all this time I assume that he's doing this in the face of the evidence.  My open admission was freely available for all to read.  Posted twice. BUT. If I didn't know that TK was the soul of discretion and that Harti was actively advancing OU - I would be inclined to suspect that they were both going to use this as another rather thin excuse to get me banned.  But for the record.  My admission of error was made BEFORE the thread was locked that last time.  Happily there still remains, nonetheless, evidence of this prior admission.
 
Which all goes to show how tenuous is tenure on these forums.  And how easy it is for our trolls to exploit every opportunity to discredit me or the technology - with or without due cause.  When they can do that much background editing then I concerned for the integrity of open source. With respect.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 11:25:52 AM
Now TK - can impose on you.  Explain all these pages of noisy alarm.  Here's your statement.
An open letter to Stefan Hartmann:

Stefan: I have repeatedly shown how Rosemary Ainslie's claim is based on incorrect math and incorrect understanding of power and energy units and their relationships. I have cited her own words and shown specifically where and how her calculations have been done incorrectly. The correct calculations, based on her own data, show that the claim that she makes is FALSE. I have asked her to either justify her calculations and show that she is correct and I am wrong, or to correct her calculations and RETRACT her claim of overunity performance and her application for the various prizes that you and Prof. Jones are offering.

The fact that she refuses to do either of these things, yet allows the claim to stand uncorrected in spite of the manifest fatal errors, shows that she is engaging in wilful scientific misconduct. The fact that you are allowing this claim to stand, unchallenged and uncorrected, indicates a certain lack of rigor on your own part. I believe that you have sufficient understanding of mathematics and energy/power calculations to see for yourself, by reading carefully and performing your own calculations, that her claim is unsupported by her data. I sincerely hope that you consider the effect on the FE community that results from allowing FALSE CLAIMS to stand without correction.
Regards--
TinselKoala

When I have answered you HERE.
Dear TK,

There comes a time in the life of a forum where the 'trolls' are identified by their insistence on repeating the same complaint over and over and over.  Your own contributions as a dedicated 'disclaimer' of all things clean and green - are well known.  Also apparent is your insistence on repeating the same complaint - time out of mind - with the clear intention of 'flaming' this thread to DEATH.  Let me remind you.  Here's the ANSWER - WRITTEN IN FULL and explained in AS MUCH DETAIL AS IT DESERVES.  I'll propose some other subjects that may be of interest to our readers and to you - hereafter.

Meanwhile, I trust that it's understood that your entire objective here is to DISCREDIT our technology, and any claims associated with this technology based on something that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO OUR PAPER WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE CLAIM associated with this.  While I understand how you RELY on this - may I also IMPOSE on you to read my answer.  That way - when you do decide to 'flame' this thread - you'll at least use some appropriate excuses to do so.

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

and here
Quote from: author=Rosie Pose link=topic=11675
Lol. I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.
All that fuss?  Are you really needing to scrape so far down that barrel? I'd post the whole of that answer but it's only appropriate to Poynty Point. I'll save the full answer for my blogspot - lest the post be deleted. LOL
Kindest regards TK
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
You may have missed this?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315130/#msg315130

I would appreciate a link.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 02:35:26 PM
Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it?  Just let her experiment in peace.  I get it, you do not like her invention.  I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure.  But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.
eatenbyagrue,

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? What is wrong with you? THINK man!

It is all out there indeed. Then where is YOUR working demo?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 02:59:55 PM
eatenbyagrue,

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? What is wrong with you? THINK man!

It is all out there indeed. Then where is YOUR working demo?
Poynty Point,

Are you now trying to tell eatenbyagrue that our own experimental evidence is pure fabrication?  I'm reasonably certain that no-one on this forum has tried to replicate our circuit.  If they did then you'd be around to scoff them or to advise them to follow your own circuit variants. 

Eatenbyagrue - I assure you that the circuit is very easy to replicate - and you don't need to parallel those transistors at Q2.  1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2 is more than enough.  Nor do you need so many batteries.  It's easily doable with just 1 x 12 volts.  Possibly it can be done on less than 12 volts - as Groundloop showed us.  There's one downside though.  One needs a zut scope to get optimised settings.  But even that is doable with some patient downloads of the voltage data for spreadsheet analysis.  And simpler yet is to simply try this out on a sim program.  We've had loads of samples of this.  They all manage that waveform.  And a sim does not use an oscilloscope - so no-one can say this is the result of energy or distortions from the scope. 

I personally can't help as I have never done a sim.  And we're not doing any more replications until our paper is published.  Or unless Poynty finds us some academics to establish the protocols.  I won't use his advices though as I've got a shrewd idea he's less than impartial.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on March 12, 2012, 03:12:11 PM
@ TK: Maths rocks, I was not very highly skilled for those kind of energy calculation, just knowing that Joules and Watts it's not same things, but I have learned a lot of things (and well understood Rosemary "Mistake" in her maths) with your post Thanks !!! When you look rationally, you have definitively right. I will go to bed less idiot this night. LOL  :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 03:13:26 PM
You may have missed this?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315130/#msg315130 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315130/#msg315130)

I would appreciate a link.

Really Poynty Point?  You'd appreciate a link?  For my part I'd appreciate knowing who it is that you're trying to address here?  Which of us readers are you proposing must rally to earn your appreciation.  And while you're at it - I would appreciate an answer too.  It's related to that battery draw down test.  Are you, in principle, prepared to let us 'reserve our rights' to this claim for your prize?  At least until our paper is published?  Otherwise I suggest we make a plan.

LOL
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 03:15:26 PM
And simpler yet is to simply try this out on a sim program.  We've had loads of samples of this.  They all manage that waveform.  And a sim does not use an oscilloscope - so no-one can say this is the result of energy or distortions from the scope. 
With reference to achieving the oscillation in a simulation; so what?

What exactly are you implying is the significance of this?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 03:19:21 PM
With reference to achieving the oscillation in a simulation; so what?

What exactly are you implying is the significance of this?

Who exactly are you talking to?

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 03:21:04 PM
Who exactly are you talking to?
Who exactly are YOU talking to?

LOL
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 03:26:33 PM
Who exactly are YOU talking to?

LOL

I've no idea.  Someone called Poynty Point?  Or is that Poynt.99 RECURRING?  But I've no idea who he is.  Just a talking head - somewhere in Canada - who hides behind an internet personality while he tries to kill off 12 years of hard work - my good name - and any potential advantages in some technology that I'm trying to progress.  And he uses tactics of calumny, traducement, misinformation, misdirection, denial, or anything to hand.  I also know that he's in the process of being sued by a certain John Bedini for similar indulgences of public defamation.  And - in the fullness of time - I hope to manage an action of my own.

LOL

added
Actually I also know that he's now DELETED HIS CALUMNY in the light of this action.  Would that I could be that effective.  But I'll bide my time.  I'm assured that all good things come to those that wait.  And God knows I've been waiting. :'(
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 03:51:13 PM
I've no idea.  Someone called Poynty Point?  Or is that Poynt.99 RECURRING?  But I've no idea who he is.  Just a talking head - 
Then the same must be said of your 2 talking-head supporters here in this thread.

Quote
...while he tries to kill off 12 years of hard work - my good name - and any potential advantages in some technology that I'm trying to progress.
Through the progress of time, YOU'VE done more damage to your credibility than anyone else ever could.

Quote
And he uses tactics of calumny, traducement, misinformation, misdirection, denial, or anything to hand.
Enough grounds to begin a suit of my own...don't you think? LOL.

Quote
I also know that he's in the process of being sued by a certain John Bedini for similar indulgences of public defamation.
Where is your proof? More grounds there Rosemary. ;)

Quote
And - in the fullness of time - I hope to manage an action of my own.
LOL, Bring it on.

Quote
I'm assured that all good things come to those that wait.
Indeed they do  ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
And for the record, NB:

I left you well enough alone Rosemary. It was YOU that came after me and OUR demanding the OUR Award.

I of course must defend the integrity of the OUR Award against any and all bogus and unsubstantiated claims, including your own.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 04:02:29 PM
No Poynty Point.  To use an internet personality and yet be constructive - is to use an internet personality WISELY.  And for you to assume that it's laudable to indulge in action that would otherwise be actionable - is sad indeed.  I think there's a legal term for it.  But I'm not sure what. Certainly 'unprofessional' would be close. 

But lest we drift off topic.  May I impose on you to accede that SHOULD WE DO THAT BATTERY DRAW DOWN TEST - AND IF RESULTS PROVE THAT THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS EXCEED THE CONTROL RESULTS - THAT YOU'D ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LIABILITIES RELATED TO THAT PRIZE?  Since you're that satisfied that we wont manage this then I'm sure you'd be happy to agree.  I'll outline the details of the required protocols - OBVIOUSLY.  But I'll do that here on these forums.  That anyone with any bright ideas or residual concerns - can put in their piece.  That way it'll be an OPEN SOURCE ENGAGEMENT.  How nice is that?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 04:05:46 PM
And for the record, NB:

I left you well enough alone Rosemary. It was YOU that came after me and OUR demanding the OUR Award.

I of course must defend the integrity of the OUR Award against any and all bogus and unsubstantiated claims, including your own.

POYNTY?  HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS?  Just check out my hate blog and your ENDLESS CONTRIBUTIONS?  You've got one of those memories that expediently only accesses what it prefers.  Golly.  You guys need to look closely at what you've written there.  Thank GOD it's as disgraceful as it is.  Else people may be inclined to take it seriously.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 04:08:53 PM
Quote
Lol. I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

This is your admission of error? I laugh in your face.

Please see my analysis of your GRAVE ERROR, showing that you are not a "tad out", but you are overstating your energy in the test by a factor of SEVENTY FIVE, leading to your FALSE CLAIM that the single test exceeded the battery's capacity.

OK... so you've now admitted that your calculations were wrong. NOW YOU MUST RETRACT YOUR CONCLUSION AND CLAIM.

You, Rosemary, have got to state clearly WHERE AND HOW your previous calculations were in error, and you state clearly that your conclusions based on them are WRONG.... and you have to state the correct conclusion.

This is not flaming. It's science. You make an error, fine. When the error is discovered and reported, a retraction is published. That's the way it's done. If you want to play scientist, you need to play by the rules. The real rules, not some that you make up.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 04:09:54 PM
May I impose on you to accede that SHOULD WE DO THAT BATTERY DRAW DOWN TEST - AND IF RESULTS PROVE THAT THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS EXCEED THE CONTROL RESULTS - THAT YOU'D ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LIABILITIES RELATED TO THAT PRIZE?  Since you're that satisfied that we wont manage this then I'm sure you'd be happy to agree.  I'll outline the details of the required protocols - OBVIOUSLY.  But I'll do that here on these forums.  That anyone with any bright ideas or residual concerns - can put in their piece.  That way it'll be an OPEN SOURCE ENGAGEMENT.  How nice is that?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

That may be workable (that means maybe Rosemary, not yes). Let's see what you propose first.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 04:11:01 PM
For your amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMU23e0m3T0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k

Note that the circuit is mostly powered by the Function Generator, and it may actually be possible in some cases for the Function Generator to.... charge the battery.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 04:12:32 PM
TK,

You ROCK man!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 12, 2012, 04:51:44 PM
eatenbyagrue,

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? What is wrong with you? THINK man!

It is all out there indeed. Then where is YOUR working demo?

Point well taken, I will see if I can get the circuit set up and play around with it.

But I think you guys are a little off as to this whole thing.  You are trying to approach this "by the book."  You see, you really cannot do that with overunity.  If you really apply "scientific method" or "rigor" or whatever you call it to overunity research, you are just not going to get anywhere.  There are tons of scientific papers where you guys would be very happy with out there in the world.  With scientists publishing actual verifiable experiments and people questioning every step of those experiments and getting into all the nitty gritties.

I think Rosemary has the right idea.  To succeed with overunity research, you have to take a more holistic approach.  Her circuit is indeed many times overunity.  It may be a subjective overunity, unique to her, but it is her project, and who are you guys to say it is not overunity?  So what if she has a different way of measuring things?  It's like Euclidian versus non Euclidian geometry.  Both ways are perfectly valid, you just have to think outside the box a little bit.  Rosemary's intuition leads her in the right direction, and you guys should respect that more.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 05:17:38 PM
Point well taken, I will see if I can get the circuit set up and play around with it.

But I think you guys are a little off as to this whole thing.  You are trying to approach this "by the book."  You see, you really cannot do that with overunity.  If you really apply "scientific method" or "rigor" or whatever you call it to overunity research, you are just not going to get anywhere.  There are tons of scientific papers where you guys would be very happy with out there in the world.  With scientists publishing actual verifiable experiments and people questioning every step of those experiments and getting into all the nitty gritties.
I agree 100% that questioning the "norm" is good. I did so with the quasi-famous Lewin experiment, and proved that most if not all (including the presenter) have been misinterpreting the presentation and the results.

Quote
Her circuit is indeed many times overunity.
You haven't proven this, therefore that is an unsubstantiated statement, and poor science to boot.

Quote
It may be a subjective overunity, unique to her
Are you listening to yourself? You've got to be kidding! Subjective Overunity LOL! That's a new one. Very creative.  ;D

Quote
So what if she has a different way of measuring things?
So what?

There is a correct method pilots use to calculate how much fuel they require to fly between locations. If they use the wrong method and get the wrong result, then bad things will happen if they calculate low.

Making an accurate power measurement requires that one uses a process and method that will provide the correct result. There is no half-correct result or half correct method.

How do you come up with this nonsense?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 12, 2012, 05:28:36 PM
I think Rosemary has the right idea.  To succeed with overunity research, you have to take a more holistic approach.  Her circuit is indeed many times overunity.  It may be a subjective overunity, unique to her, but it is her project, and who are you guys to say it is not overunity?  So what if she has a different way of measuring things?  It's like Euclidian versus non Euclidian geometry.  Both ways are perfectly valid, you just have to think outside the box a little bit.  Rosemary's intuition leads her in the right direction, and you guys should respect that more.

Hi eatenbyagrue,

LOL.  If it were purely a subjective analysis then - actually I'd have no claim at all.  But I'm so chuffed to see this much indulgence.  Thanks eatenbyagrue.  Very much.  It's a rare thing on these forums.

And guys - I'm very impressed with TK's video.  He's definitely an expert DEBUNKER.  Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries.  LOL.  WOW.  If I didn't know better I'd say he's performing feats of magic.  Golly.  Perhaps when more of you try this out - you'll see this for yourselves.  That's always the advantage of a WIDE investigation into a claim.  8)

One needs to be on ones toes - people.  Or our poor little over unity drive is likely to be discredited.  Whatever next?

Kindest regards eatenbyagrue
Rosie.
I love your name, by the way.  REALLY neat.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 12, 2012, 05:43:23 PM
For your amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMU23e0m3T0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k

Note that the circuit is mostly powered by the Function Generator, and it may actually be possible in some cases for the Function Generator to.... charge the battery.

TK,

Can you also try using a 9 volt battery with a 10K resistor in series with the 9 volt battery
as a negative bias for the mosfets and see if you get oscillations?

GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 06:01:49 PM
Rosemary,

You've cleverly dodged my question 5 times. Remember, the one about what your implied significance is of the oscillation in the simulations? Nicely done.  ;)

Let's review those dodgy responses:

Hello Poynty Point,

Not sure what you're asking.  Is there something there that's ambiguous?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Poynty Point?  Just read the follow up post.  That's the reason I included these observations.  Still not sure of your question.

LOL  No Poynty Point.  I'll pass if you don't mind.  I've already posted it over twice.

Really Poynty Point?  You'd appreciate a link?  For my part I'd appreciate knowing who it is that you're trying to address here?  Which of us readers are you proposing must rally to earn your appreciation.

Who exactly are you talking to?

Your technique is somewhat subtle (but abunantly obvious), yet effective. How or where did you learn this technique?

I asked nicely 5 times, and all 5 times my question was deflected. Clearly you are uncomfortable answering that question.

Here it is again:

With reference to achieving the oscillation in a simulation; so what?

What exactly are you implying is the significance of this?   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 06:48:20 PM
TK,

Can you also try using a 9 volt battery with a 10K resistor in series with the 9 volt battery
as a negative bias for the mosfets and see if you get oscillations?

GL.

I presume you mean _instead_ of the FG hookup. In other words, eliminating the groundloop and providing a straight DC drive to the circuit in place of the FG hookup.
Negative bias meaning I supply negative polarity to the point in the circuit where the FG's "positive" connection is made, right? And then "positive bias" means I supply positive polarity at this point.

Here are the results. There are 4 cases:
1)  9V battery providing negative bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack _disconnected.
Result: Output trace goes to steady  - 0.5 V DC, no oscillations whatsoever.
2)  9V battery providing negative bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack connected.
Result: Output trace goes to +3 V DC as soon as 3 volt pack connected, no oscillations; connection of 9V makes no discernible effect at all.
3)  9V battery providing _positive_ bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack _disconnected.
Result: Output trace goes to steady  + 2.0 V DC, no oscillations whatsoever.
4)  9V battery providing _positive_ bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack connected.
Result: Same as Result 2.

In brief: my version of the circuit does not oscillate when supplied with DC from the 9v battery+10K combination instead of the FG.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 12, 2012, 07:11:17 PM
I love your name, by the way.  REALLY neat.

Oh you have played Infocom's Zork?  I was often without a torch.

Anyway, I am glad to be in a position to lend some moral support to a hard working inventor like yourself.  I was also in a position once where I started my own venture and had to deal with criticism, so I empathize with your position.  Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 12, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
I presume you mean _instead_ of the FG hookup. In other words, eliminating the groundloop and providing a straight DC drive to the circuit in place of the FG hookup.
Negative bias meaning I supply negative polarity to the point in the circuit where the FG's "positive" connection is made, right? And then "positive bias" means I supply positive polarity at this point.

Here are the results. There are 4 cases:
1)  9V battery providing negative bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack _disconnected.
Result: Output trace goes to steady  - 0.5 V DC, no oscillations whatsoever.
2)  9V battery providing negative bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack connected.
Result: Output trace goes to +3 V DC as soon as 3 volt pack connected, no oscillations; connection of 9V makes no discernible effect at all.
3)  9V battery providing _positive_ bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack _disconnected.
Result: Output trace goes to steady  + 2.0 V DC, no oscillations whatsoever.
4)  9V battery providing _positive_ bias thru 10K, with 3 volt battery pack connected.
Result: Same as Result 2.

In brief: my version of the circuit does not oscillate when supplied with DC from the 9v battery+10K combination instead of the FG.

TK,

Thank you for taking time to test this.

>>Negative bias meaning I supply negative polarity to the point in the circuit where the FG's "positive" connection is made, right? And then >>"positive bias" means I supply positive polarity at this point.

Yes, the above is correct.

>>In brief: my version of the circuit does not oscillate when supplied with DC from the 9v battery+10K combination instead of the FG.

My circuit does oscillate in your 2 case. Try another main input voltage, like 0 to 12 volt, and see if you get any oscillations.
I never get any oscillations with a positive bias.

GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:27:05 PM
TK,

Thank you for taking time to test this.

>>Negative bias meaning I supply negative polarity to the point in the circuit where the FG's "positive" connection is made, right? And then >>"positive bias" means I supply positive polarity at this point.

Yes, the above is correct.

>>In brief: my version of the circuit does not oscillate when supplied with DC from the 9v battery+10K combination instead of the FG.

My circuit does oscillate in your 2 case. Try another main input voltage, like 0 to 12 volt, and see if you get any oscillations.
I never get any oscillations with a positive bias.

GL.

Well. That's interesting.

My FG has the capability to provide a DC output, varied by the offset control in the same manner as before. When I use the DC output of the FG, I get steady oscillations, with or without the batterypack, when the DCvoltage from the FG is offset to a certain value, both in the positive and the negative direction.

So, my circuit does oscillate when given DC from the FG, both positive and negative biased, but at different values.


ETA: OK, I tried with an adjustable PS. I get the exact same results as with the 9V battery, no matter what the applied voltage. That is, the same +2 VDC for positive bias, and -0.6 VDC for negative bias, from 0 to 15 VDC applied at the FG location from an external PS, plugged into the common ground.
 
 So my circuit only wants to oscillate when it's hooked to the FG. I have another, less sophisticated signal generator, the WaveTek VCG Model III, that I can try as well.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 07:44:36 PM
Howdy reading members and guests,

Some videos for viewing ....

Rosemary Ainslie ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont or ?? )


"GREETINGS FROM SOUTH AFRICA"
 http://www.modvid.com/play/Assorted_Images/Greetings_From_South_Africa (http://www.modvid.com/play/Assorted_Images/Greetings_From_South_Africa)   :o

A personal "GREETING" from Rosemary


"ROSEMARY AINSLIE CIRCUIT DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011"  -   ( Held at CUPT Cape Town, South Africa )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)

This is a scripted video demonstration from paid college students showing a proposed COP>INFINITY device
Where 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY  ( http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366) )
Please note that the wiring shown on the component board assembly "top and bottom" is labeled differently .....


FuzzyTomCat
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 12, 2012, 07:48:25 PM
Well. That's interesting.

My FG has the capability to provide a DC output, varied by the offset control in the same manner as before. When I use the DC output of the FG, I get steady oscillations, with or without the batterypack, when the DCvoltage from the FG is offset to a certain value, both in the positive and the negative direction.

So, my circuit does oscillate when given DC from the FG, both positive and negative biased, but at different values.


ETA: OK, I tried with an adjustable PS. I get the exact same results as with the 9V battery, no matter what the applied voltage. That is, the same +2 VDC for positive bias, and -0.6 VDC for negative bias, from 0 to 15 VDC applied at the FG location from an external PS, plugged into the common ground.
 
 So my circuit only wants to oscillate when it's hooked to the FG. I have another, less sophisticated signal generator, the WaveTek VCG Model III, that I can try as well.

TK,

Put your variable power supply at the battery input of your circuit and keep the 9 volt
battery (with 10K in series) at the BIAS input.

GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 08:00:49 PM
TK,

Put your variable power supply at the battery input of your circuit and keep the 9 volt
battery (with 10K in series) at the BIAS input.

GL.

Oh...OK, I misunderstood. I'll give it a try.

I tried the WaveTek just now and it produces the same oscillations as the F43, but I can't vary the offset or provide straight DC with the WaveTek, only can vary the output voltage... but it behaves the same as the F43 when I reduce and increase the power.


ETA: OK, I tried it using the Elenco XP-581 variable PS hooked into where I had the 3v pack before. I get the same results, except instead of the battery voltage I see whatever I've dialed into the PS, from 0 to 20 VDC. No oscillations when using the 9v battery as positive or negative bias; the same oscillations as before when I use either the WaveTek or the F43 FG. The LEDs light better, even when I just have the PS turned on but no output voltage.
My circuit likely isn't the same as yours: I have the LED in parallel with a relatively heavy inductor in the load. But I've found that the value of the inductor doesn't seem to change the behavior much.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 12, 2012, 08:21:19 PM
Oh...OK, I misunderstood. I'll give it a try.

I tried the WaveTek just now and it produces the same oscillations as the F43, but I can't vary the offset or provide straight DC with the WaveTek, only can vary the output voltage... but it behaves the same as the F43 when I reduce and increase the power.


ETA: OK, I tried it using the Elenco XP-581 variable PS hooked into where I had the 3v pack before. I get the same results, except instead of the battery voltage I see whatever I've dialed into the PS, from 0 to 20 VDC. No oscillations when using the 9v battery as positive or negative bias; the same oscillations as before when I use either the WaveTek or the F43 FG. The LEDs light better, even when I just have the PS turned on but no output voltage.
My circuit likely isn't the same as yours: I have the LED in parallel with a relatively heavy inductor in the load. But I've found that the value of the inductor doesn't seem to change the behavior much.

TK,

Thank you for providing the test.

You probably need more inductance to get the oscillating going without the function generator.

Thanks,
GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM
Howdy reading members and guests,

For the record for those whom are not familiar with my past objections "PLEASE" read the attached posting from July 1, 2011.

Although the subject matter discussed by Rosemary is mostly interaction with others in a BASHING matter ..... the fact is about claims of devices by Rosemary are all on RECORD and other forums over the years, by me or others hence the no arguing from knowledgeable Open Source members who know her mode of operation ( MO ), creating pages of nonsense unrelated to Rosemary's devices. These arguments by Rosemary create pages of nothing from her but rubbish from the continued questioning from us on how she got the results for the data presented, to reproduce the claims of Rosemary's COP>17 or now the COP>INFINITY . The burden of PROOF is Rosemary's not mine or anyone else, we are here for the FACTS and only FACTS, if Rosemary can't answer our questions HERE how in the world can she possibly answer any so called Academic experts in the field of electronics if it's about the device claim of operating with a COP greater than INFINITY.

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED "HERE" WITH A THESIS OR HOW IT MAY RELATE TO ROSEMARY'S "CLAIM" IF EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE, IT'S ALL ABOUT A COP "CLAIM" !!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg293556/#msg293556 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg293556/#msg293556)       Reply #1753 on: July 01, 2011, 07:34:54 PM

Quote from Rosemary Ainslie http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg293530/#msg293530 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg293530/#msg293530)
Quote
WRONG AGAIN.  THERE HAVE BEEN MANY REPLICATIONS.  THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IS THE ONE THAT FUZZY TOM CAT MANAGED.  BUT HE CLAIMED that it was ACTUALLY HIS DISCOVERY   :o NOT A REPLICATION AT ALL.

None of us EVEN CONSIDER THAT ANY VARIATION OF THIS CIRCUIT CONSTITUTES A DISCOVERY.  THEN WHEN HIS PUBLIC LOST ALL THEIR CREDIBILITY HE THEN TRIED SOMETHING NEW.  HE THEN  RAN A WHOLE LOT OF TESTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO FAIL.  THEN HE WITHDREW THE RESULTS THAT SHOWED THAT IT WORKED.  BUT.  HE HAS STILL LEFT OUR PAPER SHOWING A FULL REPLICATION ON HIS SCRIBD FILE.  SO.  WE NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE IS CLAIMING.  NOR DO I CARE.  THAT CIRCUIT IS NOW SO OLD HAT THAT IT'S ALREADY OBSOLETE.  THIS NEW CIRCUIT IS WAY, WAY MORE EFFECTIVE.

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"


May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29)
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.



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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RE-PRINT from original
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 12:23:30 AM
Fuzzy, thanks for linking that video of Rosemary's demonstration. I am very happy to see that the oscillations in my circuit are the same as those shown in that demonstration. It's too bad that the presenters didn't show the response to perturbations the way I did... but perhaps they had their hands full.

Incidentally... or maybe not so much.... here's a document that explains the relationship between voltage and state-of-charge in lead acid batteries.... and "silver calcium" batteries are a type of lead-acid.

http://www.scubaengineer.com/documents/lead_acid_battery_charging_graphs.pdf (http://www.scubaengineer.com/documents/lead_acid_battery_charging_graphs.pdf)

Note that, for moderate discharge rates, the voltage doesn't drop below 12 volts until the battery is down to less than 20 percent of its full charge capacity. And that's while tested under load; no-load testing might show 12 volts on an almost completely discharged battery.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2012, 12:42:29 AM
http://www.scubaengineer.com/documents/lead_acid_battery_charging_graphs.pdf (http://www.scubaengineer.com/documents/lead_acid_battery_charging_graphs.pdf)

Note that, for moderate discharge rates, the voltage doesn't drop below 12 volts until the battery is down to less than 20 percent of its full charge capacity. And that's while tested under load; no-load testing might show 12 volts on an almost completely discharged battery.

Good point TK. I was wondering what the full charge voltage is on those battery types. At the time of that video demonstration, each battery would be at an average of 12.4V. (62V/5).
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 13, 2012, 12:45:48 AM
Fuzzy, thanks for linking that video of Rosemary's demonstration. I am very happy to see that the oscillations in my circuit are the same as those shown in that demonstration. It's too bad that the presenters didn't show the response to perturbations the way I did... but perhaps they had their hands full.

Incidentally... or maybe not so much.... here's a document that explains the relationship between voltage and state-of-charge in lead acid batteries.... and "silver calcium" batteries are a type of lead-acid.

http://www.scubaengineer.com/documents/lead_acid_battery_charging_graphs.pdf (http://www.scubaengineer.com/documents/lead_acid_battery_charging_graphs.pdf)

Note that, for moderate discharge rates, the voltage doesn't drop below 12 volts until the battery is down to less than 20 percent of its full charge capacity. And that's while tested under load; no-load testing might show 12 volts on an almost completely discharged battery.

Hi Tk, I though some may find the video of the demonstration interesting for some members and guests, it also may be hard to find with the many screen names Rosemary ( dooziedont ) has.

The "silver calcium" batteries information does make sense with the apparent usage with experimentation and the duration of setting around with Rosemary's work. I remember there was some kind of battery the US government had back in WW11 or there about, used in generals jeeps or important equipment with platinum in them not silver, when discharged and letting them set for some time they would recharge themselves so I've heard.

 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 12:48:31 AM
And as if any further nails would seal the coffin any tighter....

Putting a small capacitor in series with the "positive" FG connection kills all oscillations by blocking the DC current path through the FG.


ETA: I notice that lately Rosie is denying that her oscillations occur when the battery is disconnected. But earlier, when asked about this point, she said something different.


Quoting Rosemary:
Quote
"Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries."

"That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."

"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit."

Am I allowed to ask which statement is true.... or would that be expressing rampant pseudoskepticism again?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 13, 2012, 01:14:20 AM
Hi guys,

Here are some other PDF's on batteries which are very good ....

New Dynamical Models of Lead–Acid Batteries ( 1.pdf )
Abstract—This paper documents the main results of studies that
have been carried out, during a period of more than a decade, at
University of Pisa in co-operation with other technical Italian institutions,
about models of electrochemical batteries suitable for the
use of the electrical engineer, in particular for the analysis of electrical
systems with batteries.
The problem of simulating electrochemical batteries by means
of equivalent electric circuits is defined in a general way; then particular
attention is then devoted to the problem of modeling of
Lead–Acid batteries.
For this kind of batteries general model structure is defined from
which specific models can be inferred, having different degrees of
complexity and simulation quality.
In particular, the implementation of the third-order model, that
shows a good compromise between complexity and precision, is developed
in detail.
The behavior of the proposed models is compared with results
obtained with extensive lab tests on different types of lead–acid
batteries.

Behavior of the Lead Acid Battery after the Rest Period   ( 25-509.pdf )
Abstract: - This paper presents the characteristics of a lead acid battery regarding the charge that it can release.
It is desired to determine the effect of the rest period on the charge released by the battery.
For this purpose a series of experiments that contain at least one rest period are presented.
In each of them the charge released is counted, depending on the time when the rest period is started.
It is pointed out that, every battery can release a charge close to its theoretical capacity if the discharge contains rest periods

Fuzzy
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 01:35:45 AM
A brief summary of my results so far:
I built the circuit using 2n7000 mosfets and some random inductances for the load, and a low-voltage battery pack instead of Rosemary's large one. I was interested only in waveforms, not heating of the load. I found that I could easily produce waveforms of oscillations that look identical to those shown in Rosemary's demonstration video, same magnitude and everything, but at lower _baseline_ voltages due to my smaller battery pack. These oscillations occurred only when FGs were used to switch or bias the mosfets, even using DC from the F-43 FG. No oscillations occurred when the mosfets were biased negatively or positively with DC from a battery or a regulated PS.
The oscillations followed the FG's output in phase but could be shifted 180 degrees by changing the DC offset of the FG's output. The oscillations were indeed "robust" and "continuous"... as long as the FG was used to switch the mosfets. Both mosfets heat up while the FG is used... regardless of whether the battery pack is used.
LEDs in the circuit could be made to light up at various offset settings, but only with both the FG and the 3v battery pack in the circuit-- the battery pack is needed to complete the circuit thru the LEDs, but the power to light them is coming from the FG.
A 100 pF capacitor in series with the positive FG lead completely eliminates the oscillation and the lighting of the LEDs while still allowing a nice square wave to appear on the output at my operating frequency of 1 kHz. The capacitor of course _Blocks the DC Current_ flowing through the FG while allowing the +/- square wave pulses to get through and drive the gates. This radically reduced the drawdown in the FG's output voltage--- I can use 40 V p-p if I like --- and eliminated the LED lighting while preserving the basic output waveform, minus the superposed oscillations. And the mosfets appear to run cooler.
My conclusion is that the oscillations shown in Rosemary's video are probably caused by the same effect as those I am seeing, and that the Function Generator itself is providing substantial power to Rosemary's load in her demonstration. Also, since she and her team have apparently grossly overstated the energy required to heat up her water..... the fact that the batteries don't run down detectably isn't surprising at all... nor is it indication of "infinite COP" or any other excess energy claim.


Oh... wait... I forgot. I used the wrong mosfets. The magic IRFPG50 must be used. Right?
Well, then why do my oscillations look identical to those in Rosie's video?

(The 2n7000 does have an internal body diode effect just like the bigger cousin, it just isn't normally shown on the diagram of the 2n7000.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2012, 02:03:13 AM
GL.

Your circuit simulated.   :)

Shown running on 1.5V supply. Runs also on 12V supply. The scope is inverted, but otherwise same wave form.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Groundloop on March 13, 2012, 02:21:03 AM
GL.

Your circuit simulated.   :)

Shown running on 1.5V supply. Runs also on 12V supply. The scope is inverted, but otherwise same wave form.

.99

.99

I did scope on my L3 coil so I got the sinus wave upside down. You simulation runs very much like my circuit.
What worries me with my circuit is that I can't use the output from the L3 coil to make a negative bias
voltage so that I can get rid of the bias battery. The power this mosfet switch did transfer through
my L1 coil is almost nothing so I can't get any real output to drive a load. I also did notice that I had a
range for the input voltage that the oscillator did run. In my setup this was from +1,2 volt up to +5,8 volt.
Above that voltage the oscillator did not run.

Thanks for doing the simulation.

GL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2012, 02:24:59 AM
I'm going to continue this on your OUR thread. There's more I need to show you.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 03:17:20 AM
Guys - another LONG reply.  But it deserves no less.   I'll split the posts.  Maybe that'll help.  LOL

A brief summary of my results so far:
I built the circuit using 2n7000 mosfets and some random inductances for the load, and a low-voltage battery pack instead of Rosemary's large one. I was interested only in waveforms, not heating of the load. I found that I could easily produce waveforms of oscillations that look identical to those shown in Rosemary's demonstration video, same magnitude and everything, but at lower _baseline_ voltages due to my smaller battery pack.
Not sure what TK means.  Our oscillations are ONLY generated on the negative triggering - and their voltages, measured across the battery FAR exceed the battery voltages.  TK's barely managed one volt each at either peak and on either side of the battery base line.

These oscillations occurred only when FGs were used to switch or bias the mosfets, even using DC from the F-43 FG.
'bias'?... Is he referring to the MOSFETs?  And one would actually expect the MOSFETs to 'switch' with an applied signal.  No surprises there.  Surely?

No oscillations occurred when the mosfets were biased negatively or positively with DC from a battery or a regulated PS.
We DO see an oscillation with an applied DC from a battery operated 555.  And. We do NOT see an oscillation from the function generator when the battery supply is disconnected.  The signal probe and the scope probes appear to be in a coincident position on the circuit to TK's.  And, incidentally.  When the two probes are connected - but the battery is still disconnected - as shown on his video - then one wonders how signal voltage reduces?  I would have thought that can only happen when and if there's an applied load. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:16:21 AM
I couldn't get back here for the last half hour or so.  Something's seriously wrong with Harti's system.  Anyway.  Here's the next installment.
The oscillations followed the FG's output in phase but could be shifted 180 degrees by changing the DC offset of the FG's output. The oscillations were indeed "robust" and "continuous"... as long as the FG was used to switch the mosfets.
INDEED.  One would EXPECT an applied signal would be required.  I would have thought?

Both mosfets heat up while the FG is used... regardless of whether the battery pack is used.
Again.  We cannot get any kind of oscillation while the battery is disconnected.  I’m beginning to suspect that there’s some hidden connection there. Probably not intended.  LOL.

LEDs in the circuit could be made to light up at various offset settings, but only with both the FG and the 3v battery pack in the circuit
Again.  Surely one would hardly expect the LED's to light if there was no circuit path provided?  Isn't that self-evident? 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:19:20 AM
and the next/...

-- the battery pack is needed to complete the circuit thru the LEDs, but the power to light them is coming from the FG.
That's assumed.  Not proved.  We have used a dual rail of LED's  in series with the battery supply.  In other words they could pick up the power in either direction.  Only one rail lights and it  stays lit continuously during the oscillation phase.

A 100 pF capacitor in series with the positive FG lead
Not sure what is meant by a 'postive FG lead'?  Hopefully he'll explain this.  In due course.  And. If one applies a cap in series with the signal output - if that's what he's referring to - wouldn't that completely obviate the applied signal? 

Which means that...
completely eliminates the oscillation and the lighting of the LEDs while still allowing a nice square wave to appear on the output at my operating frequency of 1 kHz.
…it would most certainly prevent the applied signal - that 'nice square wave' from reaching the circuit.  That's assuming that this is the 'nice square wave' that he's referring to.  This whole para is a bit vague.

The capacitor of course _Blocks the DC Current_ flowing through the FG while allowing the +/- square wave pulses to get through and drive the gates. This radically reduced the drawdown in the FG's output voltage--- I can use 40 V p-p if I like --- and eliminated the LED lighting while preserving the basic output waveform, minus the superposed oscillations. And the mosfets appear to run cooler.
I think what he's trying to say is that his signal at the function generators persists?  Golly.  Why should he expect otherwise?  He's measuring an applied signal.  LOL.  If the MOSFETs are cool - then it's because they're not being triggered.  I'd be surprised if he found anything else. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:21:16 AM
 
My conclusion is that the oscillations shown in Rosemary's video are probably caused by the same effect as those I am seeing, and that the Function Generator itself is providing substantial power to Rosemary's load in her demonstration.
Not an entirely scientific conclusion.  That use of the word 'PROBABLY'?  I would have thought that it's a bit vague.  It's easy to test the output.  Just put a small shunt there and check the current.  LOL.  More to the point - just measure the output voltage shown at the signal.  Not need to thumb suck.  Just measure it. I would have thought?
 
 
Also, since she and her team have apparently grossly overstated the energy required to heat up her water.....
We've never OVERSTATED this.  How can we?  Surely?  We all know EXACTLY how much energy it takes to heat water.  LOL I'm not at all sure what he's trying to imply?  Strangely full of innuendo and no substance.  Is this a propagandising trick?  I certainly hope not.  I think he needs to explain this.  Whatever next?  8) :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:22:50 AM
this is the last one.  I actually made them all too small.  But rather err in that direction.  Sorry guys.

the fact that the batteries don't run down detectably isn't surprising at all... nor is it indication of "infinite COP" or any other excess energy claim.
Again.  That's ASSUMPTION.  We'd prefer to test this under well defined experimental conditions.  Wouldn't that be more in keeping with science.  Or is TK rather hoping that his  'probability' assessments as sufficient compensation for experimental evidence or scientific fact?  Surely not?

Oh... wait... I forgot. I used the wrong mosfets. The magic IRFPG50 must be used. Right? Well, then why do my oscillations look identical to those in Rosie's video?
I'm delighted to see that TK has FINALLY realised this. I've been telling people this since FOREVER.  But with the caveat that they use a FET with a body diode - or that they apply one - in the absence of this.

(The 2n7000 does have an internal body diode effect just like the bigger cousin, it just isn't normally shown on the diagram of the 2n7000.
There you go.  It’s like I’ve been saying. REPEATEDLY. LOL.  On this point, AT LEAST it seems that TK's assessment and our own - COINCIDE.  That’s 1 more than nothing.  Which is a hundred percent better. What a pleasure. 

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2012, 04:50:04 AM
We have used a dual rail of LED's  in series with the battery supply.  In other words they could pick up the power in either direction.  Only one rail lights and it  stays lit continuously during the oscillation phase.

Of course only one LED stays lit, the one pointing to the circuit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:55:47 AM
Rosemary,

You've cleverly dodged my question 5 times. Remember, the one about what your implied significance is of the oscillation in the simulations? Nicely done.  ;)

Let's review those dodgy responses:
Your technique is somewhat subtle (but abuntantly obvious), yet effective. How or where did you learn this technique?I asked nicely 5 times, and all 5 times my question was deflected. Clearly you are uncomfortable answering that question

Hi Poynty Point.  Always a pleasure to hear from you.  But ALL THOSE QUESTIONS?  And ALL THOSE SAMPLES? Golly.  You've been busy.  But you left out this one.
I've no idea.  Someone called Poynty Point?  Or is that Poynt.99 RECURRING?  But I've no idea who he is.  Just a talking head - somewhere in Canada - who hides behind an internet personality while he tries to kill off 12 years of hard work - my good name - and any potential advantages in some technology that I'm trying to progress.  And he uses tactics of calumny, traducement, misinformation, misdirection, denial, or anything to hand.  I also know that he's in the process of being sued by a certain John Bedini for similar indulgences of public defamation.  And - in the fullness of time - I hope to manage an action of my own.

LOL

added
Actually I also know that he's now DELETED HIS CALUMNY in the light of this action.  Would that I could be that effective.  But I'll bide my time.  I'm assured that all good things come to those that wait.  And God knows I've been waiting. :'(

Hopefully that explains it.   ;D

Rosie Pose.
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 05:21:14 AM
LOL.  Guys,

It seems that ONLY I AM REQUIRED TO BE ACCURATE.  :o But it's a burden that I'll bear with PLEASURE.  Provided only that this topic is then taken seriously by our manifold TROLLS.  It seems that I must war with full force of their elite army.  LOL.  Would that the odds were better stacked AGAINST me.  That, at least, would present a challenge.  ::)

And as if any further nails would seal the coffin any tighter....

Putting a small capacitor in series with the "positive" FG connection kills all oscillations by blocking the DC current path through the FG.
regarding this last comment.  It's nice to see that TK now acknowledges the fact that the cap simply denies a path for the signal.   But I've covered that in my earlier post.  He seems to have some need to 'repeat' this?  Over and over?  For some reason?  Like the discharge of water from a water pistol.  Continuous but uncomfortably damp.  Anyway.  Moving on.

ETA: I notice that lately Rosie is denying that her oscillations occur when the battery is disconnected. But earlier, when asked about this point, she said something different.

Quoting Rosemary:
Am I allowed to ask which statement is true.... or would that be expressing rampant pseudoskepticism again?

I wonder if someone could explain to TK that there is a 'disconnect' from the battery supply when the switch at the MOSFET Q1 is open.  And by disconnect I only mean that the battery can't deliver a current.  I would have thought that was self-evident.  I think, in retrospect, he's sort of relied on the possibility that our claim ALSO covered the option of the supply being physically out of the system.  LOL.  Who would have thought?  And YET - he's managed to show us that.  I think we should all demand to see the full circuit schematic and some detail as to the parts used.  It's all rather vague.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

By the way (BTW) - it's nice to see the use of adventurous terminologies.  pseudoscepticism.  That's really good.  To the best of my knowledge - I've never even implied this.  If anything it means a 'pretended' disbelief.  And I realise that TK is now acknowledging this.  How refreshingly honest. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2012, 05:29:48 AM
Hopefully that explains it.   ;D

Explains what?, my question? No it doesn't.

Just like water off a duck there Rosemary.  ;)

Anyway, by not answering, you've still provided an answer. ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 05:30:30 AM
Of course only one LED stays lit, the one pointing to the circuit.

Poynty Point.  You say OF COURSE?  That means that your accede that the the current is flowing in both directions through the that rail of LED's notwithstanding their polarity?  Because what I'm telling you is that NOT ONLY does only that one rail light up.  It also STAYS permanently lit.  Even TK's video sample showed evidence of this.  Not sure why you should all find this of so little interest?  But there you go.  One can take the horse to water - but that's about it.

Kindest regards as it's much needed
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2012, 05:38:22 AM
Poynty Point.  You say OF COURSE?  That means that your accede that the the current is flowing in both directions through the that rail of LED's notwithstanding their polarity?  Because what I'm telling you is that NOT ONLY does only that one rail light up.  It also STAYS permanently lit.  Even TK's video sample showed evidence of this.  Not sure why you should all find this of so little interest?  But there you go.  One can take the horse to water - but that's about it.

Kindest regards as it's much needed
Rosie Pose.

You don't understand.

No that's not what I said. Read it again:

Of course only one LED stays lit, the one pointing to the circuit.

The one (or many) pointing to the circuit is the one that lights when current is being DELIVERED by the battery.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 05:41:50 AM
You don't understand.

No that's not what I said. Read it again:

The one (or many) pointing to the circuit is the one that lights when current is being DELIVERED by the battery.

I DO understand.  That same one STAYS LIT when the current is NOT being delivered by the battery - is my point.  Poynty Point.  Pay attention.

Rosie Pose,
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2012, 05:46:05 AM
If there is no current being delivered by the battery, and the diode is pointing towards the circuit, then the LED would not be lit.

Since it is always lit and it is directly in series with the battery, current is always being delivered by the battery.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 06:05:17 AM
If there is no current being delivered by the battery, and the diode is pointing towards the circuit, then the LED would not be lit.

Since it is always lit and it is directly in series with the battery, current is always being delivered by the battery.

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

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 06:07:58 AM

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

And when you've digested this much - then refer to our second paper.  There's a full on proposed explanation.  It's what this claim is all about.  LOL.

Again, and ever,
Rosie posie pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 06:23:25 AM
And guys,

While this is on my mind - let me explain something about TK's video.  You'll notice that he applied a mere 3 volts or thereby to the circuit while applying 10 volts or thereby from the signal generator.  The components were thereby intended to be 'stacked' that the applied signal would overpower the supply.  This certainly accounted for the entire lack of evidence of an oscillation in the first video.  But it leaves MANY unanswered questions in the second.  My personal opinion is that there's some 'connectivity' in the circuit that's either intentionally or otherwise - not being disclosed.  I cannot - otherwise - reconcile the fact that he gets any oscillation over the circuit components.  Unless he's deliberately routing the signal onto the only inductance available on that entirely undefined inductive load of his.  That would develop a potential difference - at least.  In which case it may explain why the signal waveform reduces.  But there would need to be some path available.  And I can't see this from his circuit.  It's simply not clear how that wiring is done.  That inductor is also on the breadboard that holds the Q-array. 

The other thing that he's trying to 'brush under the carpet' is the fact that his oscillation is never more than NOISE.  He seems to think that this is either robust or continuous.  It's neither.  Certainly NOT as is evident when he CLAIMS that the battery is disconnected. The one thing that was spot on - is that the applied signal over the battery is indeed sensitive to the 'off set'.  And albeit weak - that waveform across the battery was consistent.  But the 'off set' is simply a means by which the signal is applied in conjunction with a potentiometer that can - thereby - add to the resistance.  It's not 'negative' or 'positive' so much as 'higher' or 'lower'.  But INDEED.  That waveform is consistent with what we find.  But it most certainly is NOT possible without an applied signal.  And that signal does NOT need to come from a function generator as he's ALLEGING. 

Anyway.  That's food for thought.  Hopefully TK will make things clearer as time goes by.  I was rather hoping for more force in all that argument of his - and more rigour in that rather sad little summation he offered. I'm rather inclined to think he was trying to trivialise everything.  I think we need some more transparency in his approach - if he's really going to manage a DEBUNK.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 08:15:38 AM
@Glen Lettenmaier

I would caution you to acknowledge your sources - IF you're going to post over copious copies of information about batteries.  Else you're exposing Harti to unnecessary risk of litigation.

It's one thing to STEAL my paper.  It's an ENTIRELY different thing when you 'carte blanche' steal ownership of anyone else's.  Surely you've got SOME measure of professionalism there?  We'd all be glad to see some evidence of it.

Rosemary

spelling
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 13, 2012, 08:31:23 AM
@Glen Lettenmaier

I would caution you to acknowledge your sources - IF you're going to post over copious copies of information about batteries.  Else you're exposing Harti to unnecessary risk of litigation.

It's one thing to STEAL my paper.  It's an ENTIRELY different thing when you 'carte blance' steal ownership of anyone else's.  Surely you've got SOME measure of professionalism there?  We'd all be glad to see some evidence of it.

Rosemary

Reading members and guests,
 
For the record a re-post that I am now a "THIEF" as shown by Rosemary Ainslie ...... again without any proof of e-mails or forum postings references of the stated allegation only slander !!!!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 13, 2012, 08:42:45 AM
Some people are just lazy or just *$%#@ stupid,

New Dynamical Models of Lead–Acid Batteries
http://www.etf.unssa.rs.ba/~slubura/diplomski_radovi/Zavrsni_rad_MarkoSilj/Literatura/modeli%20baterija%20IEEE/new%20dynamical%20models%20of%20lead%20acid%20batteries.pdf

Behavior of the Lead Acid Battery after the Rest Period
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/power/2008/25-509.pdf
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: energy1234hope on March 13, 2012, 08:56:13 AM
Go away troll IT was interesting readiing before you stuck your nose in.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 13, 2012, 09:28:04 AM
Howdy members and guests,

I personally want to thank everyone for the enormous response being totally unaware of the many
individuals interested in contributing information and documentation related to context of this
thread in regards to Rosemary Ainslie and/or her "COP" devices.

Please note that all items of utmost interest must have a original signed "NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT"
on each submission for publication at Open Source Research and Development for legal reasons
or it can not be used.

I can be e-mailed at - ExecutiveProducer@OpenSourceResearchandDevelopment.org

Regards,
Fuzzy
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 01:16:22 PM
Rosemary, you are completely misinterpreting my video demonstrations.... as I knew you would.

But that's all right, because everyone reading here who DOES understand electronics... and capacitors.... knows what I've shown.

The oscillations you and I are seeing in our circuits --- identical, even down to the frequency of over 1 MHz --- is indeed a type of noise: it's FEEDBACK. And it's caused by the DC current path through the function generators: yours and mine. When this DC path is blocked by inserting a series capacitor the feedback stops. The capacitor is perfectly capable of passing the FG's square wave output along to the mosfets, so they switch normally... and cleanly.

I assure you that there is no hidden trickery going on... no more than in your own demonstration, which does include the same "hidden" DC current path that I illustrate in my videos. In my circuit and yours, the FG is providing considerable power to the circuit. Because I am using lower voltages in the battery pack, the FG's contribution is obvious. In your circuit with your higher voltage, it is not so obvious but it's definitely there, and you can prove it in the same way I have done: by capacitively coupling your FG to eliminate the DC component.

I suppose I'll have to make another video illustrating the capacitive coupling and its effect.

There are many other falsehoods and incorrect interpretations in your "analysis" of my videos. You show your abject ignorance in many ways, and in combination with your overweening arrogance and your continual self-contradictions it does become rather tedious.

And by the way.... the LEDs light up because the FG is providing them with power. With the DC blocking cap in place, the FG switches the mosfets just fine, but the LEDs don't light up
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:07:23 PM
My dear TK.  I feel positively intimidated when I see a post actually addressed to me that doesn't also relate to my poor math abilities. I hardly know how to respond.  However I see that your personal comments - your gratuitous insults -  are still all over the place.  Strangely it's enormously comforting.  I'd be very sorry if you thought highly of me and even sorrier if you acknowledged any merit in our technology.  I rather depend on your apparent neurotic need to deny us both as it's my personal measure of value.  I see it in the context of Hitler giving unequivocal support to Gandhi.  Or better still.  Gandhi giving unequivocal support to Hitler.  There's a certain lack of commonality - notwithstanding which of two occupies the moral high ground.  Which is NOT to imply that I'm Hitler - or even that you're Gandhi.  But you get the drift?  And TK.  You need to wise up.  Your 'attacks' are hopelessly disproportional and your propaganda is losing its edge.  That reliance on my stupidity and general moral irrectitudes may satisfy you and your 'four'? is it? ...'friends'.  I'm not sure that everyone is so readily convinced.  Anyway.  Far be it from me to teach you how to be effective.  I'm rather grateful that you're not..
 
The oscillations you and I are seeing in our circuits --- identical, even down to the frequency of over 1 MHz --- is indeed a type of noise:
Not actually TK.  It's a question of scale.  Noise is never 'robust'.  Nor are your oscillations. 

it's FEEDBACK. And it's caused by the DC current path through the function generators: yours and mine.
In which case you'll have to explain why it oscillates from a 555 switch with no function generator in sight.  And it works when that switch is powered by the same batteries as the supply.  And it works when its simulated.  And we even get that oscillation with the continual negative signal applied at Q2.  You see the problem?   Whichever way you cut it.  It just keeps on keeping on.

When this DC path is blocked by inserting a series capacitor the feedback stops. The capacitor is perfectly capable of passing the FG's square wave output along to the mosfets, so they switch normally... and cleanly.  I assure you that there is no hidden trickery going on... no more than in your own demonstration, which does include the same "hidden" DC current path that I illustrate in my videos.
Really?  Then how is it that you get any voltage at all across the batteries when the batteries are disconnected?  Not only that - but those disconnected DC batteries seem to measure a negative and positive voltage which is EXTRAORDINARY.  A miracle of some considerable magnitude.  But.  Since your scope probe and your signal terminal probe are at a co-incident position - a shared junction - then I'm inclined to suspect that you're showing us the voltage across the switch.  Which is really, really clever - considering what you're trying to imply.  As Poynty says.  You ROCK.

edited a pronoun.  LOL
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:08:42 PM
In my circuit and yours, the FG is providing considerable power to the circuit.
Not actually.  But in YOUR circuit - whatever it is - there's MORE voltage applied from the signal generator than is available from the supply.  Under such absurd test conditions I would expect the signal generator to become an active participant in all that applied potential difference.  Wouldn't you?  That's certainly the ONLY justification in using such a paltry pack of batteries.

Because I am using lower voltages in the battery pack, the FG's contribution is obvious. In your circuit with your higher voltage, it is not so obvious but it's definitely there, and you can prove it in the same way I have done: by capacitively coupling your FG to eliminate the DC component.
During our switching period - when the oscillation is in full swing - the applied voltage from the function generator is zero.  As you keep saying.  Do the math. It's a REALLY easy exercise to measure the amount of current discharged by the function generator.  Our own results point to MORE energy being RETURNED to the generator - than supplied.  AND. Until you replicate that measurement then you have NOT replicated our circuit.

I suppose I'll have to make another video illustrating the capacitive coupling and its effect.
By all means.  That would be nice.  But what you ACTUALLY need to do is replicate our actual results.  Anything short of this is simply YET ANOTHER exercise in misdirection.  It reminds me of those tests conducted at MIT to disprove cold fusion.  I believe it was led by a Dr Vest.  To their shame.  They forgot that the ONLY way to disprove a claim is to NEVER replicate the experiment.  And - of course.  That can never be done.  Unless of course Time simply stops.  That's where we have the edge TK.  Unfortunately it's a bitter pill - and you needs must swallow it.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:09:12 PM
There are many other falsehoods and incorrect interpretations in your "analysis" of my videos.
There it is again.  You don't IMPLY that I'm lying.  You come out and say it.  LOL.  My dear TK.  Wake up.  I'm way too old to waste my life in trivialities.  And 'lies' or 'falsehoods' as you put it - are absolutely not going to add to the quality of my life.  If you want to 'allege' this - then do us all the courtesy of pointing out which falsehoods you're referring to. 

You show your abject ignorance in many ways,
Very likely TK.  But I have nowhere near your talents for displaying stupidity.  The most glaring evidence of this is in your reliance on everyone else's. 

and in combination with your overweening arrogance and your continual self-contradictions it does become rather tedious.
I'm not sure that you're under any obligation to tolerate it.  All you need to do is move away.  I for one would be sorry.  I'm beginning to enjoy this exercise in 'debunking'.  It's as valuable as Poynty's earlier arguments in fundamental physics. 

And by the way.... the LEDs light up because the FG is providing them with power. With the DC blocking cap in place, the FG switches the mosfets just fine, but the LEDs don't light up
Golly. Who would have thought. ::) :o 8)

Kindest regards TK,
Rosie Pose.

 ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 04:26:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRYEdJB6bVg

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

This is YOUR circuit, Rosemary, using an FG as shown in your diagram and in the video Glen linked. May I remind you that you have NOT shown any 555 timer results of sufficient detail for consideration--- so let's compare my small apples with your bigger ones, not with your grapefruit which we haven't seen.

You can't claim that the mosfet type or the voltage makes any difference until you or somebody else actually shows it. Meanwhile the fact that my scope traces duplicate yours show that the mosfet types DON'T matter at least to first order. And "noise" does not have the sharp voltage envelope that this feedback oscillation has. You will note, maybe, that in both your oscillations and mine, the voltage levels aren't random but oscillate around fixed values and the oscillation is quite sinusoidal when expanded. It's not noise as noise is generally defined.

But we know how you are about general definitions.

Quoting Rosemary in one of her famous ex cathedra pronouncements:
Quote
Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

You are right about one thing: You are too old to be wasting your brief remaining time on this Earth pushing this nonsense.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:34:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k)

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

This is YOUR circuit, Rosemary, using an FG as shown in your diagram and in the video Glen linked. May I remind you that you have NOT shown any 555 timer results of sufficient detail for consideration--- so let's compare my small apples with your bigger ones, not with your grapefruit which we haven't seen.

You are right about one thing: You are too old to be wasting your brief remaining time on this Earth pushing this nonsense.

Our circuit is NOT your circuit.  Our results are NOT your results.  Our claims are NOT your claims.  I am under no obligation to show you anything at all.  Nor will I.  But Poynty Point and others have done some valuable work on simulations.  And you really don't need to look much further than that.  The problem is that you cannot see for 'looking' and I'm getting rather tired of trying to guide you. 

And I will do PRECISELY what I wish with my life.  I think that I'll start by ignoring your advice.  I suspect it's loaded with the desire that I stop claiming COP INFINITY - when your own life is dedicated to denying this.  We're fighting the same war TK.  We're just on different sides.

Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 04:46:06 PM
Stop making claims that aren't true and that you can't support with experimental evidence. Stop trying to teach physics and math to people who have actually spent time in schools studying the subjects. Stop wasting your own and other people's time by playing on their naive hopes and wishes.

That's what I want you to stop, Rosemary.

Oh... and I think you cut and pasted too soon. That's not the video I intended to link, sorry for the confusion. Check the post again for the correct videos. And at least delay a bit so it seems as though you've had time to watch them and think about them... even though I doubt you will.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:52:28 PM
You've been editing TK.  Golly.  Let me address this as well.

You can't claim that the mosfet type or the voltage makes any difference until you or somebody else actually shows it.
That's not true.  Any scientist can claim anything they like.  The trick is to back it up with evidence.  I will be more than happy to do this when I finally prepare the protocols for our definitive 'draw down tests'. 

Meanwhile the fact that my scope traces duplicate yours show that the mosfet types DON'T matter at least to first order.
Why should this matter?  It's something that I've been advocating from the kick off.

And "noise" does not have the sharp voltage envelope that this feedback oscillation has.
It most certainly DOES.  It is simply better evidenced the better the resolution of the scope.

You will note, maybe, that in both your oscillations and mine, the voltage levels aren't random but oscillate around fixed values and the oscillation is quite sinusoidal when expanded. It's not noise as noise is generally defined.
WHICH oscillation are you referring to?  The one with the battery disconnected?  When it goes into full on square wave a/c voltage?  LOL.  Or the one where you manage to find 1 volt over 3 where we show typically 90 over 36?

But we know how you are about general definitions.
Indeed.  I tend to get a bit pedantic.

Let me know if you're going to add to that post of yours again.  I'd be sorry to miss anything.

Rosie Pose
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 04:55:06 PM
My dear TK.  STOP trying to tell me what to do with my life or what to think or what to say.  I'm rather fond of my freedoms - and our own constitution allows for this - as well as yours.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2012, 05:27:43 PM
And guys - here's that rather tired and ultimate TROLL JUSTIFICATION.  It's alarming.


Stop wasting your own and other people's time by playing on their naive hopes and wishes.


His efforts here are commendable.  They're not guided so much by a desire to simply STOP the inevitable onward march of new energies from all over the place - they're guided by the overarching requirement to protect you from those such as me who may - wittingly or otherwise - prove the existence of all that energy.  He wishes to disabuse you of your rather naive hopes and dreams for a better future.  He wants to disabuse you of any expectations greater than our energy monopolists manage.  His interventions here are for your own good.  In short - you/we owe him our gratitude.

Otherwise - God knows what will happen.  We'll assume that cold fusion is NOT PIE IN THE SKY - and we may even commit the unpardonable folly of thinking that we can work our electricity bills down to next to nothing.  And that simply by changing the way we apply our electric energy applications.  God forbid.  Because that will most certainly NOT be a good thing.  One must NOT foster unrealistic hopes.  And it really doesn't matter that there's an entire SCHOOL that has PROVED the existence of an abundant energy supply source.  And nor does it matter that we need access to that energy or our lives are going to be horribly curtailed by a confrontation with Nature will most certainly annihilate the most of us.

The thing to do is to silence ME and any rather hopeful evidence that we've garnered.  And that way you can live your lives without hope.  Far more realistic.  And far more in the interests of our energy monopolists.  The last thing that's needed is to change anything at all.  There's some out there who MUCH prefer the status quo - and would MUCH prefer it to let matters stand.  Exactly as they are.  Fortunately TK's there to protect theirs and your best interests.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 06:30:57 PM
Rosemary said:
Quote
There it is again.  You don't IMPLY that I'm lying.  You come out and say it.  LOL.  My dear TK.  Wake up.  I'm way too old to waste my life in trivialities.  And 'lies' or 'falsehoods' as you put it - are absolutely not going to add to the quality of my life.  If you want to 'allege' this - then do us all the courtesy of pointing out which falsehoods you're referring to. 

How about this big whopper:
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

Until you retract the claims made in this statement, which anyone with knowledge can see is based on wrong math and wrong ideas about power and energy..... you are a liar, because you are claiming something that isn't true.

I've been dealing with your casual attitude towards the truth ever since the Naked Scientists forum days, when you lied repeatedly about having a patent, when all you really have is a lapsed patent application which was never granted nor pursued. And anyone who has been reading your statments over the years can think of many more instances when you have "stretched the truth".... like these conflicting statements you have made in this very thread:
Quote
"Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries."

"That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."

"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit."
You're not only a liar but the most inept kind: one with a poor memory.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2012, 06:41:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVljRuPwrtQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVljRuPwrtQ)

That will have to be the last one for the morning. If anyone _coherent_ can think of another test I can do with what's there, I'll be more or less happy to do it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 13, 2012, 07:15:47 PM

Yes TK,
can you do a Polygraph test on Rosemary  ;) most of us know the answer, but you can help those who still believe in Santa.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 13, 2012, 07:35:04 PM
Yes TK,
can you do a Polygraph test on Rosemary  ;) most of us know the answer, but you can help those who still believe in Santa.

NOW THAT"S A TEST !!!!

THE ONLY ONE WITH A GREATER THAN INFINITY RESULT !!!

 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 13, 2012, 10:17:37 PM
Hi members and guests,

For you reference a image of my comments at YouTube on the testing at CPUT university .....  :o

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

 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 04:50:01 AM
DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKER
Guys

Not sure how many readers here are that interested.  But it may be worth your while to look in at TK's last two videos.  I've watched then both - repeatedly.  But I'm only one of about 30 or so,  on the latest -  and only one of about 50 or so on the previous.  Not that well subscribed TK.  :o :'( I wonder why?  In any event - it may be worth your while to dip in there.

Here's his circuit - as CLAIMED.  We've got a battery supply (3 volts or thereby) - I'll refer to that battery plus terminal as (Ref) 1.  This then goes to an inductor (undefined ) that has a diode path in either direction in parallel to that inductor.  I'll refer to that as (Ref)2.  This then goes to the Q-array with the signal terminal presumably applied to the gate leg of Q1.  I'll refer to that as (Ref 3).  So.  We've got 1 in series with 2 in series with 3.  And then this all goes to the common ground which is in series with negative terminal of the battery supply - which I'll refer to as (Ref)4.  Again - 1 (battery postiive) to 2 (inductor with paralleled diodes as LED's) to 3 (gate leg of Q1 of the Q-array) to 4 (the negative terminal of the battery).  All very simple.

Now.  TK's using a dual channel oscilloscope and 2 probes. He has the one positioned at the same junction as the probe terminal of the function generator - Ref 3 - which then shows us the applied signal.  And he has the other positioned - presumably - between the battery positive terminal and the inductor load with it's paralleled diodes or LED's - Ref 1.  I personally can't see any of their grounds - but we can assume that they've been positioned appropriately.  Then he adjusts the output of the signal generator that it has about 10 volts of applied signal - which is not insubstantial.  Then he disconnects the battery and shows us those oscillations - not over the battery because that's disconnected - BUT - across that load inductor of his.  Then he states - correctly - that since the battery is out of the circuit - and since the oscillations are still very apparent - and since they're relatively substantial - and since there's no other supply source - then one may conclude that the power for that circuit is COMING FROM THE APPLIED SIGNAL AT THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  And he's RIGHT. 

BUT - here's the thing.  ALL that he's actually managed is to prove is that 'optionally' - and with sufficient applied voltage at the signal - and with a nominal resistance at the load - then it is possible to generate a voltage potential from that signal generator that it can power a load.  Which is very interesting indeed.  And not only that but the oscillations at either side of those voltage peaks - are consistent with the 'shape' of our own oscillations.  Not the 'volume' so to speak - but certainly the general shape. 

Where he 'errors' as Poynty puts it - is in his conclusion.  What he then claims - with a rather desperate abuse of generality -  is that THEREFORE THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT WHEN WE GENERATE THAT OSCILLATION IT IS ACTUALLY FROM THE POWER SUPPLIED BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  And this is patently nonsense.  We take the trouble to MEASURE the output from the function generator.  The voltage is nominal and in any event below zero - during the oscillation phase.  At best it means that energy is being 'returned' to that generator rather than 'delivered by'.  Then.  It it true that I have not detailed our 555 tests.  Nor will I until we've done that final battery draw down test.  But you only need to look at the oscillations that are managed through simulations.  No function generator and YET that oscillation is evident. 

I've got more to tell you related to that last diode that he used to replace the previous.  That was truly INGENIOUS.  But I'll get back here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 14, 2012, 05:03:06 AM
Ok Rosemary, I think we all get the poynt.

I made an error when I once used the term "errored" instead of "erred".  :'( To err is human, and contrary to what you and Magluvin say, I'm pretty sure I qualify as human.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 14, 2012, 05:08:32 AM
Hi members and guests,

There appears to be some huge problems associated with "dooziedont's" demonstration at CUPT on 12 March 2011 here is one of them ....

The video shows five (5) batteries in a voltage supply bank at 60.4 volts .... but the published schedule of device components shows six (6) batteries which includes most all testing data and documentation using a 72 volt system .....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 05:08:41 AM
Ok Rosemary, I think we all get the poynt.

I made an error when I once used the term "errored" instead of "erred".  :'( To err is human, and contrary to what you and Magluvin say, I'm pretty sure I qualify as human.

Poynty Point.  I KNOW this.  We are all mere mortals.  And hopefully you see how TEDIOUS it is to be constantly reminded of our errors.  At least my reference to your own 'errorring' does NOT IMPLY A LACK OF INTEGRITY.  LOL  Quite apart from which - it's rather nice.  I'm into individuality when it comes to expression.  In a big way.  Surely you realise this by now?

Take care there Poynty Point.  You're invaluable to this over unity drive of ours.  Even if you don't realise it.  And I'm rather fond of you - in a twisted kind of way.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 14, 2012, 05:16:34 AM
Howdy members and guests,

Here is another boo boo on the video from "dooziedont" on the CUPT demonstration on 12 March 2011 ............. where they had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY  ( http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366) )

This monumental error was from what I remember detected by poynt99, and he may first want to comment on this.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315141/#msg315141    Reply #888 on: March 12, 2012, 06:53:29 AM    ( schematic diagrams )
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 05:29:26 AM
Poynty Point.  I KNOW this.  We are all mere mortals.  And hopefully you see how TEDIOUS it is to be constantly reminded of our errors.  At least
my reference to your own 'errorring' does NOT IMPLY A LACK OF INTEGRITY.  LOL  Quite apart from which - it's rather nice.  I'm into individuality
when it comes to expression.  In a big way.  Surely you realise this by now?

Take care there Poynty Point.  You're invaluable to this over unity drive of ours.  Even if you don't realise it.  And I'm rather fond of you - in a
twisted kind of way.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

Let me add this.  I think you have some considerable intellect there Poynty Point - which is sorely lacking in the most of our trolls.  What you lack
is the 'professional touch'.  Do you - any of you - realise how EFFECTIVELY you could have killed off this technology - with the application of a
little constraint?  Fortunately that's NOT going to happen.  Glen keeps posting and TK tries to occupy the moral high ground by trying to knock
the foundations from my own.  You guys are REALLY CLUMSY.  Thank you God.

Rosie 

P.S
What I'm really trying to say is this.  If 'hitting below the belt' doesn't work - shouldn't you 'regroup' and try another tactic?  Like hitting above
the belt?  You all know my weakness.  It's electronics.  SO.  Argue what you know.  Let's indulge the rare event of topical discourse.  That would
be so much more entertaining.  And that way you'll no doubt be able to PROVE whatever it is that you're trying to prove.

Again
Rosie Pose

P.P.S
Because what you're doing at the moment just isn't working.  Surely you see that by now?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 14, 2012, 06:32:16 AM
Hi members and guests,

As per Rosemary's ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont .... ) her admissions ..... for the record in all fairness her disclosure without any disagreement from me on whats quoted.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291932/#msg291932    Reply #1533 on: June 21, 2011, 07:04:38 AM


Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.  And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.

This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

.............
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 07:13:46 AM
Guys, here's the thing.

There are a lot of factors that motivate the denial of over unity.  First off is that it simply is not allowed in terms of our standard model.  Then
there's the unarguable evidence of those who have tried to capitalise on claims that were not actually substantiated.  Which is not exactly
ethical.  Then there are those who offer 'slim' evidence or evidence that is intuitively gauged - rather than measured.  And what drives the 'nay
sayers' is anyone's guess.  I very much doubt - in TK's instance - that it's because he's in the pay of vested and competing interests.  His videos
are not exactly 'high definition' professional numbers.  And one would expect him to be able to access better equipment - if he was also being
richly compensated for his efforts.  The same goes for Poynty. 

So.  What drives them?  I can only conclude that it's based on the preferred belief that IF there's any proof of over unity - then it should properly
come from their 'school'.  Those that they can identify with.  People who - at its least - earn a living from applied electrical engineering - or such
like.  But that's not true either.  There are many claimants who not only manage proof but who clearly are NOT qualified in engineering.  And as
often as not their claims are NOT always vociferously challenged.  Itseung is a case in point.  Lasersaber another.  They're tolerated.

I think the distinction is drawn when a claimant has the unhappy combination of being 'unschooled' - and stating unequivocal proof - AND being a
mere female.  Something like that?  Just don't know.  But what I do know is that the attack has been never ending, well orchestrated - and, in
the light of all the hard work that's gone into this nay saying - rather expensive - both in time and output.  Which begs the possibility that there
is some kind of vested interest that keeps their protests coming - which is also rather well funded.  But I don't know.  I can only surmise.

What I do know is this.  We are trying to show you all a means whereby you can access a - heretofore - hidden source of energy.  It's very
simple.  It's in the bound state of  coalesced structures.  What that means is that when you have any bound atomic material - such as in a stone
or a cup or anything at all - then the thing that binds those atoms is where this energy is from.  Assumption has been that these structures are
bonded as a result of the weak interaction between the atoms themselves.  We actually PROVE that it is NOT.  It is something that is OUTSIDE
those atoms.  NOW.  If this is true - which is certainly what our experimental evidence shows - then it also means that we're well able to access
this energy.  It's simply been rather overlooked.  And the real advantage is this.  Any such proposal DOES NOT CONFLICT with the standard
model.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 07:14:49 AM
I am driven to try and show this.  And I cannot explain my commitment to this 'drive' other than to assure you that it is not related to
self-promotion.  I freely acknowledge that this is NOT mine nor any of my collaborators' discovery.  It is just something that has been 'passed
over' as a result of two things.  The one is that research funding is usually from vested interests.  There would be no single beneficiary to this
finding therefore there would be very little funding and therefore very little interest.  And the other reason is the result of assumptions related to
the way material is bonded.  I would much prefer it that you understood the implications of this than the applications.  I'm not an
experimentalist.  If anything - I'm an amateur theorist.  BUT.  In the face of the evidence - then I think the value in its applications should and
would be better progressed if this thesis was also better understood.
 
Which brings me back to the problem of our trolls.  Until they desist with this rather absurd indulgence in character assassination - then the
understanding of the model - or the application of that model - will be continually subject to evaluation on grounds that are less than scientific.
Fortunately the time has now long passed where readers are persuaded by the 'bias' of a poster.  We're all of us somewhat more discerning.
And the force of 'protest' which is applied against me has now reached a dimension that is utterly void of any kind of  moderation or good
sense.  It shows a want of professionalism and with it a want of good judgement.  And general discernment is far more sophisticated than it was
in the days when TK was thought of as latter day Che Guevara championing the cause of the utterly naive.  His methods of address - and those of
Poynty - and those of all the 'trolls' who post here - are now seen for what they are.  Gratuitous and excessive. 
 
This is my appeal to them to 'clean up their act' even if it's just in the interests of generating some much needed credibility.  I LONG for some
decent exploration of the anomalies that we've shown.  And I LONG for some understanding of the insights that we're proving.  Anything - rather
than this tedious need for me to address their rather fatuous attentions.  It's too easy to show them up for what they're doing.  And the entire
exercise is beginning to bore me to tears.  Just how many ways must I expose their somewhat infantile - and somewhat less than appropriate -
and somewhat less than ethical methodologies.  Trolling needs to be revised if it's EVER going to be effective again.  Really we need to elevate
the tone here.  I think they should try and be a little more adult. 
 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 14, 2012, 09:04:01 AM
Howdy members and guests,

You all wonder "WHY" this is a very good question.

If you were Stefan and woke up every day to PM's and e-mail threats of forum closures and multi million dollar "LAWSUITS" from Rosemary ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont ...... )

What would you do ..... make sure without a doubt firm ground why to close threads and ban that person ?


Talk about the high road ??  :P

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg294073/#msg294073    Reply #1790 on: July 06, 2011, 11:01:11 AM
Hi,
as this topic is now too controvers and I was threatened with lawyers,
I will lock now all the Rosemary threads.
Also there was no recent updates of any sorts about the technology and
the only postings I see here are about bitching about the old outdated papers
and scribd files etc..
So it is only annoying.
I have put all the members who got into this flame war into moderation now
and will delete new topics, if they should start again this topic...
Regards, Stefan.

P.S: All further issues about this circuit can be discussed at Ms.
Aisnley´s blog:

http://newlightondarkenergy..blogspot.com/

but not anymore over here.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 14, 2012, 11:23:36 AM
Howdy members and guests,

As you may have noticed I do not need hundreds of posting to make my point clear for you.

Most every posting of mine came without debate starting at page 53 but all buried by Rosemary with huge multiple response reply's to others a thesis and other nonsense  ..... no facts.

Below is a recap of my postings of FACTS ...... 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315425/#msg315425          "Asking Why"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315417/#msg315417          "Rosemary's Background"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315412/#msg315412          "12 March 2011 DEMO - Mosfets CIRCUIT Shown Incorrect"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315410/#msg315410          "12 March 2011 DEMO - How many batteries ?? Five (5) or Six (6)"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315246/#msg315246          "Thesis or Device - My Personal Feelings"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315234/#msg315234          "12 March 2011 - Demonstration at CUPT YouTube video"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315141/#msg315141          " Incorrect device schematic at blog and forum postings"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315103/#msg315103           "12 March 2011 DEMO - 15 Engineering Experts There or Not"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315084/#msg315084           "555 Circuit Test - Yes or No"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314975/#msg314975           "HUGE Math Error related to Device / Batteries / Joules"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314793/#msg314793           "12 Volt Soldering Iron VAPORIZES Solder"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314745/#msg314745           " PRIZE AWARD WINNER !!! "

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314721/#msg314721           "CLAIM and REPRODUCTION for VERIFICATION"
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 01:33:53 PM
Hi members and guests,

As per Rosemary's ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont .... ) her admissions ..... for the record in all fairness her disclosure without any
disagreement from me on whats quoted.
Reply #1533 on: June 21, 2011, 07:04:38 AM


Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the
O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I
was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too
emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to
university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT
UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.  And from then until now I worked
for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science
they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can
largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt
this.

This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long
and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL
PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured
muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit
components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know
until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any
issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.


I did some page editing here too.  It's a fair summation of my lack of training.  Courtesy Glen

LOL
Regards,
Rosie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 02:17:13 PM
Golly.  Hopefully those posts are now more readable.  In any event, guys, in the interests of keeping this topical - here's what I propose as the
basis of a test to FINALLY get this proven.  If any of you can think of anything that may have been omitted then let me know.

. We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation
. The same test must also show a negative wattage in the computation of energy delivered by the battery
. The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required
. We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests
  this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.
 
. Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.
. Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.
. It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

I think that covers the test procedure.  We'll need to work out how to run the supervision.  Let me know if any of you have more refinements required for this.

This should be fun. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 14, 2012, 02:30:46 PM
Hi members and guests,

It appears we have more of the same from Rosemary going on again.

Here is a posting from Stefan with his request for the billionth time and never not one part done.

I'm Tired of this and have a web site to finish and will be recommending the closure of this thread and the "BANNING" of Rosemary Ainslie for the posted reasons made.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg285971#msg285971   Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 07:28:48 PM


hartiberlin
Administrator

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .



To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Enough said for the moment  :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: energy1234hope on March 14, 2012, 02:42:58 PM
Troll alert more rubbish from the trolls its rosemarys thread, heard all your crap before you and your cut and paste crap go away.It was peaceful until you turned up.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 03:16:58 PM
Troll alert more rubbish from the trolls its rosemarys thread, heard all your crap before you and your cut and paste crap go away.It was peaceful until you turned up.

Hi energy123
I noticed your earlier comment on this.  I'm afraid this goes with the territory.  It seems that all my threads get flamed - sooner or later.  I think
the trick is to apply that scroll button.  And if anyone posting here could remember to press that shift button.  Else your posts fall of the page.
Which is the general intention.

The only decent thing is that Stefan won't just close this thread again.  Which is comforting.  But it would be so nice if he could do something
about Glen's attempt at wrecking it's readability.  It's no good applying to Glen.  He has no basic understanding of professional conduct.  I think
he's under the delusion that this is all assisting in is promotion of some internet live programming - or something.  It's confusing.
His language skills are not up to par which means that whatever it is he's trying to advertise is rather lost.  Which is also why he needs to cut and
paste.  He can't simply 'write' an original post.  BUT.  Frankly, between you and me, I'm rather sorry for him.  I'm not sure that his behaviour can
be considered balanced.  I think he's been 'beset' by the 'green eyed monster'.  But do what I do.  Just try and ignore his posts.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 14, 2012, 05:02:28 PM
I won´t ban Rosemary , I just want to see, if she will finally do
 the battery tests...
 
 Also TinselKoala did some new Youtube videos about the oscillations
 and they seem to depend on the used function generators...

So probably these oscillations will capacitively input energy from the function generator into the circuit and thus
into the batteries.

So a battery test with just a 555 timer powered by the main battery is a must.

Just forget the function generator for precise Energy efficiency calculatiions...
 This is just flawed...

 Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 05:17:54 PM
I won´t ban Rosemary , I just want to see, if she will finally do
the battery tests...
 
Also TinselKoala did some new Youtube videos about the oscillations
and they seem to depend on the used function generators...

So probably these oscillations will capacitively input energy from the function generator into the circuit and thus
into the batteries.

So a battery test with just a 555 timer powered by the main battery is a must.

Just forget the function generator for precise Energy efficiency calculatiions...
This is just flawed...

Regards, Stefan.
Stefan - thanks for the undertaking.  I think it was agreed the last time I was re-instated.  But I wonder if you could impose on Glen to curtail
all that extraneous 'cut and paste' nonsense.  It's overwhelming this thread.  Conservatively he dominates approximately one third of each page
in his efforts to discourage readership.  I don't think you're giving me a fair chance here - with respect.

Then.  Regarding the function generator.  I have designed a test that will first be run to prove whether or not the function generator is responsible
for this extra energy - as you claim.  Where would we be if we did not allow experimental evidence to guide us?  I would have thought?

Regarding TK's videos - they only prove that the function generator CAN supply energy - provided that he maintains a closed circuit - which he
manages with those diodes of his.  You'll notice that the applied voltage from the generator is at a whopping 10 volts - while the circuit only has
3.  And the only resistance in the way of that applied voltage is that little inductor of his.  Hardly enough to resist all that applied potential
difference.  Frankly, under those conditions - I'd be rather amazed that the function generator did NOT manage to apply its energy.  But it's
hardly consistent with either our tests or our claim.  I'm intrigued to see that you think it is.  In any event.  Whether it is or not - will be easily
demonstrated with our proposed test of the 555.  I don't think we'll ever be able to dissipate the required 50 watts unless we use the function
generator.  And anything short of that is a waste of time.

And guys, Poynty - all - PLEASE advise if I've left out any considerations in that proposed test.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 14, 2012, 06:04:08 PM
@ enrgy123hope
You accuse Fuzzy of being a Troll, at least Fuzzy has built and tested the circuit unlike you, so who is the real troll ?
why don't you build the circuit ?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 14, 2012, 06:31:21 PM


Then.  Regarding the function generator.  I have designed a test that will first be run to prove whether or not the function generator is responsible
for this extra energy - as you claim.  Where would we be if we did not allow experimental evidence to guide us?  I would have thought?

Regarding TK's videos - they only prove that the function generator CAN supply energy - ....


You always will get energy into the circuit via the STRAY Capacitance of the
gate to source and gate to drain STRAY capacitances.

It might just work out for a few Watts only, depends on this oscillation frequency, but this will recharge a bit your batteries and
thus it is very important to do the battery status test before and after the experiment and not to use anymore the function
generator at all.

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 06:42:21 PM
You always will get energy into the circuit via the STRAY Capacitance of the
gate to source and gate to drain STRAY capacitances.

It might just work out for a few Watts only, depends on this oscillation frequency, but this will recharge a bit your batteries and
thus it is very important to do the battery status test before and after the experiment and not to use anymore the function
generator at all.

Regards, Stefan.
Harti, here's the extent of our claim. I confidently predict that there will be almost NO discharge of energy from the experimental test when the control will be flat.  I think it would be unreasonable to propose that this amount of energy is supplied from capacitance related to the transistors.  Or indeed to anything.  But it is, in any event, immaterial.  I will simply position a non inductive shunt resistor at the output of the function generator to show the energy that is either being put out by that generator or being returned to it. 

I'll try this again.  We CANNOT GET THE REQUIRED CONTROL OVER THE SWITCH with a 555.  Therefore we can't do the higher wattage test.  And I'm NOT about to engage in a test that's restricted or limited to 5 watts or less.  It's neither significant at these levels - nor conclusive.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 14, 2012, 07:34:07 PM
I would propose if we must stay with the FG, that two LEDs be installed in series (in reverse polarity of each other similar to how I showed them in the battery line) with it so that IF there is any appreciable power at all going through the FG, it will be indicated by which LED is lit, if any.

I'd prefer this over another scope channel with a CSR.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 14, 2012, 09:14:52 PM
I would prefer to have the Function generator out of the circuit as we don´t know what kind of ground loop noise
it was generating together with the grounded scopes and other measurement devices...

There could easily humming groundloop currents exist.

If you are a musician, you know what I mean by this, if you ever had humming problems when connecting
many equipments to a mixer or a PA.

Maybe Rose can just use the 9 Volt Battery trick to get  the oscillation started and use the negative threshold voltage
of the 9 Volt battery and a pot for it.

ALso the capacitance of a gate to source or gate to drain electrodes of a MOSFET transistor
can be in the nanoFarads range, so if you use higher frequencies, this "Straycap" can really put some power
into your circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

P,S, I deleted my last post about Glen, which I received from another user.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 10:23:46 PM
Guys.
 
I am very happy to run those tests subject ONLY to the unequivocal approval of not less than 2 academics - that the protocols are sufficient.  Since this was the result of our previous COP>17 tests then I'm applying the same conditions here.  IF the control batteries deplete to 10 volts each - against the supply batteries that may, correspondingly, not lose more than one half of a single volt each - then that would constitute an 'win' of the experiment over the control - tested not less than twice - as detailed.

BUT.  I am NOT running this experiment for your benefit Harti - nor for anyone's.  I am running the tests to establish unequivocal proof that our unity barriers can be defeated.  The reach is more comprehensive than to satisfy either you or Poynty Point.  It needs must also satisfy our experts.  Else the entire event will fade from recognition.  This is not meant to denigrate the work that is done on these forums.  It is just that by virtue of the eccentricity related to our interests in over unity -  we will ONLY reach this very same audience.  And there is no way that this technology can be progressed without mainstream involvement.  Now.  I may be able to get a couple of experts to 'engage' prior to publication of our paper.  I don't know.  I'll certainly try for it.   But I most certainly WILL get their co-operation once our papers are published.  And we're reasonably certain that this due - in fairly short order.

But.  Between now and then, there's a lot of groundwork that needs doing.  I personally have to find a way to get this onto real time monitoring that it can be seen on the internet - which represents a learning curve for me.  I have to source those batteries and I have to get our scope calibration certified.  I also need to access some more voltmeters to monitor the battery voltages as I gave mine to someone to enable the advancement of this technology.  Little did I know.  In any event.  I also need to establish the parameters for the control and then purchase the appropriate resistor.  And I then need to find the 'team' that are prepared to monitor this that we can give it some kind of supervision on an hour to hour basis.  You must remember that my time is relatively free.  My collaborators all work for a living.  I'm not happy to impose - except possibly on a loose 'shift' basis.  I also, ideally, need to get a data logger in both tests to validate the results.  And again - that's not only a learning curve but I suspect it will all require more than one computer.  Which may represent yet another outlay.  All of which is going to cost me both in time and money.

Now.  The thing is this.  Can you Harti - or Poynty - explain what inducement you offer me when neither of you even have the courtesy of addressing me by name?  Either Rosemary - or Rosie.  My friends and even my staff call me Rosie.  Everyone else calls me Rosemary. Take your pick.  I answer to either.  But I will not be subject to the continuing humiliation of being addressed by neither.  If you, Harti - or you Poynty - wish to INSTRUCT ME in any matter at all - then PROCEED THAT INSTRUCTION WITH THE USE OF MY NAME AND THEN CONCLUDE THAT INSTRUCTION WITH A WORD OF THANKS.  That's a nominal courtesy.  And I deserve NO LESS.  And IF you, like TK and those other trolls here - choose to continue to address me through the 3rd person singular or plural - as if I am not even here - then I take it that I am under NO OBLIGATION to even acknowledge your post. 

That courtesy is REQURED.
Regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 14, 2012, 10:27:25 PM
Harti, here's the extent of our claim. I confidently predict that there will be almost NO discharge of energy from the experimental test when the control will be flat.  I think it would be unreasonable to propose that this amount of energy is supplied from capacitance related to the transistors.  Or indeed to anything.  But it is, in any event, immaterial.  I will simply position a non inductive shunt resistor at the output of the function generator to show the energy that is either being put out by that generator or being returned to it. 

I'll try this again.  We CANNOT GET THE REQUIRED CONTROL OVER THE SWITCH with a 555.  Therefore we can't do the higher wattage test.  And I'm NOT about to engage in a test that's restricted or limited to 5 watts or less.  It's neither significant at these levels - nor conclusive.

Regards
Rosemary

It's nice to have you admit finally that your original Quantum article circuit, where you used a 555 timer and claimed COP>17, cannot work.

And let me point out YET AGAIN that your famous test described in the quote where you betray your ignorance about power and energy and math.... that test only applied A FEW WATTS to your load, by your own numbers--- when the calculation is done correctly--- as it has been done by at least 4 other people besides me.

ETA: It appears that the reported test applied, by my calculation, an average of about 56 Watts to the load... that is, 331,000 Joules per 6000 seconds, or about 56 Joules per second. More than I thought... but much less than Rosemary's figure of 4170 Watts.... that is, using her figure of 25 million Joules applied over the 100 minutes of the test.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 10:34:41 PM
It's nice to have you admit finally that your original Quantum article circuit, where you used a 555 timer and claimed COP>17, cannot work.

And let me point out YET AGAIN that your famous test described in the quote where you betray your ignorance about power and energy and math.... that test only applied A FEW WATTS to your load, by your own numbers--- when the calculation is done correctly--- as it has been done by at least 4 other people besides me.

Golly TK.

Can you not understand the written word?  Or is this YET another attempt to denigrate our technology?  We cannot get the control over the 555 switch to dissipate NOT LESS THAN 50 WATTS - which is our nominal target for these tests.  I explained this. As Poynty puts it RTFP.  Or are you suggesting that the function generator is able to apply that much energy?  Which would be a truly remarkable feat.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 14, 2012, 10:40:09 PM
Golly TK.

Can you not understand the written word?  Or is this YET another attempt to denigrate our technology?  We cannot get the control over the 555 switch to dissipate NOT LESS THAN 50 WATTS - which is our nominal target for these tests.  I explained this. As Poynty puts it RTFP.  Or are you suggesting that the function generator is able to apply that much energy?  Which would be a truly remarkable feat.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose.

Golly, Rosemary.... you claim that your test put out 25,000,000 Joules in a hundred minutes. Now that's a remarkable feat.
Or is it just a wrong calculation and a lying claim on your part?
Quote
We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 10:51:52 PM
I would prefer to have the Function generator out of the circuit as we don´t know what kind of ground loop noise
it was generating together with the grounded scopes and other measurement devices...

There could easily humming groundloop currents exist.

If you are a musician, you know what I mean by this, if you ever had humming problems when connecting
many equipments to a mixer or a PA.

Maybe Rose can just use the 9 Volt Battery trick to get  the oscillation started and use the negative threshold voltage
of the 9 Volt battery and a pot for it.

ALso the capacitance of a gate to source or gate to drain electrodes of a MOSFET transistor
can be in the nanoFarads range, so if you use higher frequencies, this "Straycap" can really put some power
into your circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

There IS a way to obviate ALL GROUND ISSUES related to the use of the function generator.  I need to check with the manufacturer that it's possible to use it in this way - but if so we'll simply apply a two pronged plug - as is used on that Tektronix that we loaned. That's certainly doable and will obviate the need for that 555 test.  But I'll have to find out if this is possible.

Also. I am NOT about to test anything outside our circuit.  We have staked our claim in that paper - and that paper is related to that precise circuit. Nor will I. There is NO value in us doing any other circuit test as the ONLY objective is to prove the claim in the paper. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 14, 2012, 10:54:13 PM
Golly, Rosemary.... you claim that your test put out 25,000,000 Joules in a hundred minutes. Now that's a remarkable feat.

25 million is alot, to the point where I am a little concerned about safety.

Rosemary, are you concerned that if this circuit is replicated that the excess energy produced from it will have a negative impact on the earth?  In theory, you could have quite a large explosion when you have unlimited energy produced from a small space.  Nature has evolved to naturally deal with under-unity sources of energy, which are limited in nature, but this unlimited energy could really pose a challenge.

Do you have any suggestions for those of us who plan to use this circuit for home heating and so forth?  How can we use this energy safely so that it does not wreak havoc on earth climate?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 10:58:23 PM
25 million is alot, to the point where I am a little concerned about safety.

Rosemary, are you concerned that if this circuit is replicated that the excess energy produced from it will have a negative impact on the earth?  In theory, you could have quite a large explosion when you have unlimited energy produced from a small space.  Nature has evolved to naturally deal with under-unity sources of energy, which are limited in nature, but this unlimited energy could really pose a challenge.

Do you have any suggestions for those of us who plan to use this circuit for home heating and so forth?  How can we use this energy safely so that it does not wreak havoc on earth climate?

LOL eatenbyagrue.  I'm not sure.  Come to think of it - it is somewhat alarming.  :o Hopefully there's been a minor miscalculation somewhere there. 

Thanks for this post.  I've had my first laugh of the day.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
 ;D 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Hello MileHigh

I see you're still muttering there.  You may very well be right.  It may be that the battery is entirely responsible for generating all  that energy.  It may be that there is nothing to this claim - nor this circuit.  In which case?  We'll find out from the experimental evidence.  Which is as it should be. 

MileHigh - you're 'ace' at electronics.  I know this.  Do one of your famous analyses and explain the positive half of the waveform and it's path.  But don't put in the nonsense about the moving through the function generator terminals.  Because you must remember that there's a negative signal at that Q1 Gate.  The current can't pass through there.  And the config is EXACTLY as I sketched it.  I REALLY want to know some viable explanation. 

And I LOVE your choice of poetry.  Dylan is absolutely my favourite poet - and the greatest artist EVER - let alone from the 60's. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SeaMonkey on March 15, 2012, 01:17:26 AM
Rosemary,

It has been a very long while since I've commented
and I'm very delighted to discover that you're in
good spirits and intellectually as agile as ever!!

Now I need to get caught up on what's been going
down...
- - - - - Added thoughts:

Woa!!  Some pretty potent happenings have gone
down!!

I should also like to thank Stefan for being so
accommodating and so tolerant.

Regarding all of the flames and Trollerization-
you have reason to be very proud Rosemary.
The psychological implications (regarding the
Trolls) are really quite revealing.

Obviously, the Trolls hold you in very high
regard; even admire your intellect and tenacity.
At the same time it arouses feelings of inferiority
within them which they simply cannot brook.

Love-Hate at work.  Freud was correct about one
thing - men develop attitudes which affect their
ability to interact with women from their Mothers.

The conduct of the Trolls does not reflect well on
that relationship.  What compels them to attack a
woman so viciously?  What are they revealing to
the World about themselves?

Congratulations to you Rosemary!  You've done
well.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 01:34:36 AM
lol  Muttering.  Priceless 

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 04:54:10 AM
I want to understand something here...

When Roses circuit is in oscillation, can that oscillation, positive peaks and negative peaks, be measured at the battery? To say, if I had a hypothetical current meter in line at the battery terminal, will I see the same "current" fluctuations at the load?

If so, and we used the hypothetical dual LED, input/output test proposed earlier, one led works in one current direction and the other led when the current is in the opposite direction, then the contention is that only one of those LEDs is going to light, showing that total currents are only flowing in 1 direction in Roses circuit when in oscillation???  From the battery? Never ever into the battery? Never? Never ever? Oscillation definition?

That would be saying that only DC flows through the circuit at any time, no?

What happened to the oscillation? That "alternating current" through the circuit during oscillation? That alternating current would have to flow through one led at a time depending on the phase. This one lights, then that one lights with each phase of operation. No? 


In my opinion, Using LEDs as a throughput, even many on each branch, it would change the circuit quite a bit from the original form. No? Voltage drops, limited currents... as compared to the original circuit.

How much AC current is flowing in the unmodified version of of Roses circuit, during each phase of oscillation? Peak AC current, each direction of oscillation, is what I would be interested in knowing.

Only 1 led lights.  hmm.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: AbbaRue on March 15, 2012, 05:08:36 AM

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

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 05:19:16 AM
Seamonkeys are cool.   ;D

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 15, 2012, 05:42:23 AM
Rose,

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

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

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

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

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

What are your thoughts?

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 05:54:18 AM
This fellows measurements shown on the following video show a substantial amount of power from
the signal generator is bypassing the MOSFETS and getting to the heater load. 
In fact once the power from the battery is connected the power entering the Heater load actually drops drastically. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&feature=autoshare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&feature=autoshare)

Question....

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

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

But what does that show us?

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

Mags




Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 06:13:11 AM
10v from the generator, into 3v of AA. Would that draw some current from the gen?  Load it down any?  ;)

lets see, 6 12v batteries=3v AA .   ???   If you were to use 6 12v batteries, just round it off to 72v, what would you be setting your gen voltage to then? 237v?

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 07:33:32 AM
These oscillations. Do they have anything to do with the inductor/transformer? Battery in or out.
If so, then how does current flow through it at all in oscilation form if the battery is out of the chain or loop, as the circuit is broken without the battery? What circuit are you representing exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you change the circuit and clearly represent it as what is on the paper? :o
Stand before a Judge in court and pull that crap and say so long to your self being credible any longer.  Isnt this the kind of stuff you try to debunk? People faking it?

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

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 07:37:57 AM
LOL.  Hello Seamonkey,

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

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

Kindest regards SeaMonkey. 
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 07:47:27 AM
This fellows measurements shown on the following video show a substantial amount of power from
the signal generator is bypassing the MOSFETS and getting to the heater load. 
In fact once the power from the battery is connected the power entering the Heater load actually drops drastically. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&feature=autoshare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&feature=autoshare)

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

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 07:55:25 AM
Ok. Those 3 posts were written in 3 separate posts for a reason.

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

It all boils down to this.

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

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

 Do we take his word for it?   ;)


Magsleeps good at night    ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 07:59:03 AM
Ok. Those 3 posts were written in 3 separate posts for a reason.

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

It all boils down to this.

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

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

 Do we take his word for it?   ;)


Magsleeps good at night    ;)

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

Kindest regards,
Rosie 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 08:08:04 AM
Hey Rose

Its the post before that one you will like.

 8)

Night Rose
Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 08:14:05 AM
Hey Rose

Its the post before that one you will like.

 8)

Night Rose
Mags

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

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 09:02:34 AM
Poynty Point,

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 15, 2012, 01:31:04 PM
Rosemary,

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I am trying to help out here, not make things more difficult. I am most certainly not trying to trick anyone, and that's part of the reason I propose this be done open source. Any "foul play" can be weeded out immediately.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 01:58:42 PM
Rosemary,

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I am trying to help out here, not make things more difficult. I am most certainly not trying to trick anyone, and that's part of the reason I propose this be done open source. Any "foul play" can be weeded out immediately.
Poynty - I'll try and get back here later tonight.  I'm bushed.  I'll explain the problem.  But I've actually already tried to point it out.  Just read back on that oscillation and how it effects a dual rail of diodes.  Did you even read it?  Anyway.  I am so tired I can hardly type.  I'll try and get back here later.

Regards,
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 02:20:07 PM
Cmon. I figured someone would say"hey Mags, the gen was set at 20v, not 10v, get your facts straight!" by now.  :o

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

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

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

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

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

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 15, 2012, 02:25:52 PM
Poynty - I'll try and get back here later tonight.  I'm bushed.  I'll explain the problem.  But I've actually already tried to point it out.  Just read back on that oscillation and how it effects a dual rail of diodes.  Did you even read it?  Anyway.  I am so tired I can hardly type.  I'll try and get back here later.

Regards,
R

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

Also, do you consider it a valid test? If not, why did you perform it?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 08:24:25 PM
Poynty Point,

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

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

What are your thoughts?

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

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

Regards,
Rosemary

added
I still haven't made this clear enough - possibly?  The voltage across the shunt shows that current is flowing clockwise and anticlockwise through the circuit.  Therefore one would expect the LED's in our tests - to alternate - first the one rail - then the other - depending on the current polarity.  But what actually happens is that ONLY the one rail stays lit.  Is that clearer?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 08:55:24 PM
Yes, I've read it Rosemary, but I can't say I fully understand the implications, as you've not gone into sufficient detail to get that.

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

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

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

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

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

Is that any clearer?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
       
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 09:07:48 PM

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

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

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

Mags

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

Kindest regards,
Rosie
 ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 09:43:55 PM
Now.  Back to your proposals here Poynty Point,
1) Open source this testing. Meaning? Get a number of folks involved, even if they can not be there to witness the tests. A few members here from OU (Wilby, Mags, Gyuala, Stefan perhaps), a few from OUR, and a few of your folks. We hammer out an acceptable test protocol and decision factors we are all happy with.
Frankly I'd be more than happy to settle for any proposals at all that are made by Wilby.  And I've effectively structured the entire test around the proposals made by Magsy.  Stefan's only concern is with the use of the function generator.  And since his concerns here relate to the grounding issues - we can obviate this very easily - as I explained.  Gyuala is a latecomer to the arguments but I'm also happy with his input.  And indeed with any proposal made by anyone at all.  Provided only that they relate to our circuit and the apparatus detailed in our paper.  And that the proposals are reasonable or doable within the constraints of the equipment that we can access. But your point 2 here - Poynty Point.  That's been explained now.  I hope. 
2) There is a much easier, cheaper and quicker way to settle the COP question...The method I propose is the dual light bulb idea I described some time back. Two power diodes and two 60W or 100W light bulbs are placed in series with the positive lead from the batteries. I would suggest as a prerequisite, you confirm first that with these diodes and bulbs installed, the apparatus still exhibits the same or similar infinite COP measurement you are seeing now. I would strongly suggest too that the two light bulbs be fully covered with a cardboard box for this prerequisite test.
We can't do this as a definitive test.  But if required we can include a small test showing this effect.  We ran our own test off a 555.
And if all agreed, I would be willing to consult with Stefan, Steven Jones, and the contributors to the OUR Award to seriously consider this as a "GO" test for the prizes.
Actually we'll pas on this.  We're none of us really interested in these prizes.  For a variety of reasons.  But perhaps we could propose that you donated this - on our behalf - to one of our better experimentalists here - for the purchase of some zut measuring equipment.  Or better still give it to someone to take their studies further - like a scholarship award - so that one of our worthy members can study further.  Something like that?  I'm sure you'll find some worthy cause.  I only used that 'claim' for your prizes to force acknowledgement of our claim.  LOL.  God knows.  There was no other way to get you guys to take us seriously. And as for this...
   No academics required. I would like to have an electrical engineer there to be a non-biased judge/observer of the test to verify the outcome. This could be a hired professional from the Cape Town area.
This is a non-starter.  It's a critical condition to engagement here Poynty Point.  You well know why.  But trust me on this.  We'll get those academics on board.  If not before our papers are published - then certainly AFTER.  And I'm rather hopeful that this may also be 'before'.  We'll see.  God knows I tend to way too much optimism.  But I'll certainly give it my best shot.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 15, 2012, 10:08:15 PM
The voltage across the shunt shows that current is flowing clockwise and anticlockwise through the circuit.  Therefore one would expect the LED's in our tests - to alternate - first the one rail - then the other - depending on the current polarity.  But what actually happens is that ONLY the one rail stays lit.  Is that clearer?

Rosemary,

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

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

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

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

If there was equal power from the battery and the circuit, then both LEDs would be lit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 10:14:45 PM
Yes it's clear now what your objection to this test is based upon.

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 15, 2012, 10:20:08 PM
You're ASSUMING that the battery is delivering power in the first instance.
Am I? Where?

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

Phase shift is evident in all parts of this circuit. There is inductance and capacitance, and a high frequency oscillation. In fact if it weren't for a significant degree of phase shift, the circuit wouldn't oscillate at all.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 10:28:12 PM
Here's where you claim that the current is from the battery - Poynty Point.
There is an explanation why both LEDs are not lit. You would agree that in order for power to be dissipated in a circuit element, that the voltage difference across the element and the source current must be in-phase to some degree, correct?
There is NO current flow from that SOURCE.  Unless you mean something entirely different by the use of the word 'source'?

Rosie Pose
ADDED - FOR EMPHASIS
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 15, 2012, 10:37:07 PM
Here's where you claim that the current is from the battery - Poynty Point.There is NO current flow from that SOURCE.  Unless you mean something entirely different by the use of the word 'source'?

Rosie Pose
ADDED - FOR EMPHASIS

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

Just because the battery is connected doesn't mean the current has to be coming from it; it can also be going to it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 11:00:00 PM
Guys,

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

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

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

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 15, 2012, 11:08:11 PM
Guys,

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

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

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

 

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

 8)

added - http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96507/   ( another P'rat example.png )
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 15, 2012, 11:25:38 PM
It must be this one ......

 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
I'm trying this again Poynty
Strictly speaking, I should have said  "the voltage difference across, and the current through" the element.
If the phase shift only applies to to the current through and the voltage across the element resistor - then that will be measured as the heat dissipated over that resistor.  The greater the phase shift the less the heat dissipated.  Now.  What has that to do with the oscillation?  The current flow below zero can be explained as the energy being returned TO the battery.  The current flow greater than zero can be explained as the energy delivered BY the battery.  We're only trying to determine the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery. But the problem is that current delivered BY the battery is from where?  Because the battery is disconnected.  Do you see the problem yet Poynty Point?  There is no reasonable explanation for the source of the potential difference that is responsible for each positive half of each of those oscillations.   

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2012, 12:21:51 AM
Now Poynty - guys,

 I may be throwing too much at you all - too early in this discussion.  But there's another thing. IF the energy is coming from the element resistor and circuit components - then consider this.  The element becomes the predominant source of potential difference.  It's inductive/conductive properties become entirely responsible for a kind of supplementary supply source.  Then.  Under those circumstances we can theoretically 'impose' the concept of it having it's own anode and cathode that is in counter polarity to the battery's.  Then do the measurements that Poynty has RIGHTLY proposed is applicable to a supply source.  Now phase shifts would indeed come into the argument.  And there would be the continual discharge and recharge of that element - in the usual way.  Then reconfigure the sums with this in mind.  Then indeed - one would have a supply source that is behaving predictably.  But the confusion would be that the supply source is also dissipating exploitable heat signatures - and it is absolutely NOT at the cost of any material at that supply.  Those atoms will remain there into perpetuity - provided only that the heat is never too extreme.  So.  What price our 2nd Law of Thermodynmics - with this evidence to hand?

I do hope that's not too much to digest.  But that's where we propose all this surplus energy is coming from.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: AbbaRue on March 16, 2012, 12:34:47 AM
After watching that video again, it appears he has placed the Oscilloscope across the battery holder.
So the signal he is getting is probably due to the leads picking up an RF output from the wiring.
I have seen similar readings many times by just hooking up one lead from the scope to a circuit. 
I tested one of Dr. Stiffler's circuits where he used 3 coils in resonance and got an LED to light just from the ground.
I got the LED to light every time I turned on my signal generator, even though I never hooked it up to the circuit.
I just left the leads laying on the bench about a foot from the circuit.
I noticed in Dr. Stiffler's videos that he had a lot of test equipment running in the back ground when he did his tests too.
The circuit wiring acts as an antenna picking up the output from the signal generator. 
The large output is understandable because he is putting in about 20V P-P, that's a very strong signal.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 16, 2012, 01:16:10 AM
After watching that video again, it appears he has placed the Oscilloscope across the battery holder.
So the signal he is getting is probably due to the leads picking up an RF output from the wiring.
I have seen similar readings many times by just hooking up one lead from the scope to a circuit. 
I tested one of Dr. Stiffler's circuits where he used 3 coils in resonance and got an LED to light just from the ground.
I got the LED to light every time I turned on my signal generator, even though I never hooked it up to the circuit.
I just left the leads laying on the bench about a foot from the circuit.
I noticed in Dr. Stiffler's videos that he had a lot of test equipment running in the back ground when he did his tests too.
The circuit wiring acts as an antenna picking up the output from the signal generator. 
The large output is understandable because he is putting in about 20V P-P, that's a very strong signal.

Hey Abba

Well, if the scope is across the battery leads, when the battery is removed, the scope should get  the signal through the mosfet being they seem to be in oscillation(on/off) even without the battery in the circuit.

Abba, if we have 72v in batteries, what level of signal is required to get the circuit working as shown by Rose? 500v?   ;)   Same ratio a 20v pp and 3v battery.
that voltage difference is why the gens output is being loaded. 

A car audio amplifier has a switching power supply. Input to the amp is 12v. The step up transformers primary is driven by mosfets, usually more than 1 for each phase in parallel. What voltage would the pwm driver supply to the gates of those fets? And they turn on and off as they are intended to.  ;)

Really, I like TK. I Just dont agree with what was presented in the vid as some proof of point. I got pissed, I admit. I expect better. He knows better than to use that transformer and leds the way he did and claim it to be an equivalent to the schematic shown in the beginning of the video.
And if he knew the issues with doing so as I had presented, then thats underhanded.
Is he smart enough to know it?  ;)

So what can we say about any portion of the video presentation, without having some level of distrust?

Abba, after all of these years of pestering Rose, have you seen an equivalent setup built and tested by any one of these people here? Why is that?

We get sims, and funky bad imitations. yet they will waste years and years, but never build it. WHY?  8)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 16, 2012, 01:24:07 AM
Years and years . How many now?  Would I be so passionate about taking such an undertaking, without building the circuit and testing properly?
Not without being paid.  8)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2012, 01:25:00 AM
Which guys, means this.

To keep this readable - BV = battery voltage - BC = battery current. 
Conversely RV = resistor voltage - RC = resistor current.

1 BC is positive -  clockwise              -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this >>>>> GREATER ZERO
. potential difference transferred to RV
. discharge of potential difference from BV

2 RC is negative - counterclockwise   +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this <<<<< LESS THAN ZERO
. potential difference transferred to BV
. discharge of potential difference from RV

3 RC is positive - clockwise               +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this >>>>>>GREATER THAN ZERO
 . potential difference transferred from RV
. recharge of potential difference at BV

This would resolve the problem.  Effectively we're proposing that the discharge of energy in that 3rd phase is coincident with the positive half of each oscillation.  And that it 'leads' with a negative charge.  Which would explain the path for that oscillation as the charge bias of the current would then be in synch with the polarity bias' of the MOSFETS.

In any event guys.  That's what we're proposing.
Again,
Kindest regards,
Rosemary                     

I hope that's clear.  Effectively all that has happened is that the element resistor becomes the supply source and it's voltages are the mirror opposite of the battery supply.  LOL  It's difficult to explain.  But it's just SO SIMPLE.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: AbbaRue on March 16, 2012, 01:28:42 AM
@ All: Now that we are one page 71 of this thread:
 I was wondering how many people posting here have attempted a physical replication of this circuit,
and done there own tests?  I want to know that I'm not alone. 

I don't have the same MOSFET values and I don't have the exact load specs mentioned here.
But I used what I have and spent over a week trying different things. 
For the load I used a 300W 120V halogen bulb connected in series with various inductors. 
I used two 12 V batteries for the power, and a 3rd 12V battery to run my signal output. 
I was unable to get the batteries to keep there charge, but did find they lasted. 
When I connected them directly across the load they went dead much faster then through the circuit. 
I did see a similar waveform on the scope as was on that video by TinselKoala, when he had the batteries connected.

Sorry I can't tell you more about my tests right now, it's been over a month since I did them. 
I have been working on something else for the last while, and put that circuit aside. 
This is a very simple circuit to build, only took me about 1/2 hour to throw together. 
So I hope I'm not the only one that did so!

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2012, 01:31:36 AM
Hi Magsy and AbbaRue,

That's some hard work you both did there.  The fact is this.  TK has shown us that the function generator CAN - under rather absurd conditions - be responsible for supplying energy to a circuit.  And he's right.  In the same way as a 555 driver can also supply energy to a circuit.  But Magsy your point is spot on.  It cannot be responsible for the full 'whack' of energy that we measure.  And that's what TK's trying to imply.  And that's also where he loses his credibility.  Some years back it not only would have been enough - but any argument he posed quite simply WAS enough.  Thankfully those days are more or less over.

Thanks guys
Rosie
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: AbbaRue on March 16, 2012, 01:35:20 AM
Wow! 4 new posts in the time it took me to write the one I just posted.
Quite busy here tonight! 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2012, 01:51:05 AM
Abba - thanks for trying this out.  I'm sorry we couldn't see more of your results.  I don't think that many people have actually tried this.  The technology has never been that popular due to the rather comprehensive campaign that rather mitigated against me.   All posts were simply answered by accusations against me that I was lying.  It was tedious.  But very effective.   LOL.  Not that much has changed.  But there have been a few off forum notices that I've been given where people have replicated Poynty's sim.  And indeed, one example (only) where they also found that negative value.  But frankly - no-one really believes it.  With good reason probably.  We're claiming Infinite COP.  And that's hardly probable.

One of the down sides - is that it needs close analysis of a setting to get the optimised values.  And that's tedious unless you've got a scope - like we do - that does the hard work for one.  But again.  Thanks for trying it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 16, 2012, 02:09:30 AM
Rosemary,Let me be direct here ....

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315573/#msg315573 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315573/#msg315573)   Reply #1046 on: March 15, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

FOR YOUR POSTED SCOPE SHOT DATED 11 February 2011

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96507/ (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96507/)

IS THIS THE SCHEMATIC DATED 12 MARCH 2011

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96508/ (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96508/)



YES OR  NO  ??



Fuzzy
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 16, 2012, 02:13:43 AM
Up to 60203 reads on this thread

There must be at least 5 readers. The earlier forecasts of 3 readers is significantly lower than estimates currently suggest. More news at 11   WMAG  OU,Earth

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2012, 02:19:12 AM
Up to 60203 reads on this thread

There must be at least 5 readers. The earlier forecasts of 3 readers is significantly lower than estimates currently suggest. More news at 11   WMAG  OU,Earth

Mags

LOL Magsy.  You're priceless.  I must say it's nice to know that there are any readers at all.  They've got a lot of extraneous information to plough through - my own included.

But you certainly keep things in focus.  Take care of yourself Mags. 
Kindest as ever,
Rosie

I'm going to try and get some shut eye.  So.  You'll have a small break from my own postings.  LOL.  Hopefully Poynty will settle for your battery draw down proposal - as a test.  I need some direction here.

 :) :'( :o   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 16, 2012, 05:07:15 AM
Actually TK. If you have any sense of integrity, you would take those videos down, as they do not represent the RA circuit as you suggest they do. What is that called when you do that?

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on March 16, 2012, 05:52:40 AM
Up to 60203 reads on this thread

There must be at least 5 readers. The earlier forecasts of 3 readers is significantly lower than estimates currently suggest. More news at 11   WMAG  OU,Earth

Mags

I count! Rosemary said I count (at least I used to count...)!! I still read the thread, I just don't comment. I did get a scope but it doesn't have a 'math' feature and I still don't have a function generator so I don't have the basic requirements for building Rosemary's circuit... I'm guessing that 15Mhz is too slow to see what you're seeing? I still would build it if I could... :-X
PC 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 16, 2012, 06:23:38 AM
Actually TK. If you have any sense of integrity, you would take those videos down, as they do not represent the RA circuit as you suggest they do. What is that called when you do that?

Mags
To the 380 reader in the last 4 hours...  ;)

Does anybody know what its called when you do that?  :o :o :o Anyone? :o

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 16, 2012, 01:12:40 PM
I count! Rosemary said I count (at least I used to count...)!! I still read the thread, I just don't comment. I did get a scope but it doesn't have a 'math' feature and I still don't have a function generator so I don't have the basic requirements for building Rosemary's circuit... I'm guessing that 15Mhz is too slow to see what you're seeing? I still would build it if I could... :-X
PC

Your 15MHz scope should be sufficient to see the ~ 1.5MHz oscillation.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 16, 2012, 01:22:46 PM
Back to your proposals here Poynty Point,Frankly I'd be more than happy to settle for any proposals at all that are made by Wilby.  And I've effectively structured the entire test around the proposals made by Magsy.  Stefan's only concern is with the use of the function generator.  And since his concerns here relate to the grounding issues - we can obviate this very easily - as I explained.  Gyuala is a latecomer to the arguments but I'm also happy with his input.  And indeed with any proposal made by anyone at all.  Provided only that they relate to our circuit and the apparatus detailed in our paper.  And that the proposals are reasonable or doable within the constraints of the equipment that we can access.

I've asked both Wilby and Magluvin via PM. Wilby replied "been to that vietnam... not going back.", which I assume means he's not interested, and Magluvin replied that he would "think on it".

I've proposed an alternative test that I believe is a far better approach than the battery drawdown tests, for several reasons. You're not willing to entertain this idea, and there has been no feedback from anyone else reading/posting here, neither on the drawdown test, the open source idea, nor my proposed test, so it would seem folks are apathetic about the whole thing in my best estimation. So it will be the same course as before. Steady as she goes.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2012, 01:29:19 PM
I've asked both Wilby and Magluvin via PM. Wilby replied "been to that vietnam... not going back.", which I assume means he's not interested, and Magluvin replied that he would "think on it".

I've proposed an alternative test that I believe is a far better approach than the battery drawdown tests, for several reasons. You're not willing to entertain this idea, and there has been no feedback from anyone else reading/posting here, neither on the drawdown test, the open source idea, nor my proposed test, so it would seem folks are apathetic about the whole thing in my best estimation. So it will be the same course as before. Steady as she goes.

Ok.  Then I propose that we leave it as is.  The battery draw down test is cumbersome.  But it's definitive.  I'll set to and see what I can manage.  There's a lot of work required.  And frankly I prefer it because it's the one that we initially used for BP.  The downside was that the data was required to be left out of that Quantum paper - for reasons better understood by Professor Jandrell.  He did - nonetheless explain it as being extraneous to the experiment under review.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2012, 01:46:18 PM
SO  AGAIN.  Here's the proposed with the omission of the 555 test as we'll be using an ungrounded plug for the function generator.

. We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.
. Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 16, 2012, 02:31:53 PM
Allow me to slightly re-format your complete test protocol for better reference. Then I'll address certain points.



1) We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation.

1.1) The same test must also show a negative wattage in the computation of energy delivered by the battery.

1.2) The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required.

2) We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.
 
3) Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.

4) Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.

4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.

5) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

6) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.

7) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.

8] We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries on the control and the experiment - continuously.

9) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.

10) We then recharge all those batteries.

11) We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.

12) We re-run those tests. This to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 16, 2012, 02:43:10 PM
REQUEST FOR ANSWER NUMBER 3


Rosemary,Let me be direct here ....

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315573/#msg315573 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../msg315573/#msg315573)   Reply #1046 on: March 15, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

FOR YOUR POSTED SCOPE SHOT DATED 11 February 2011

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96507/ (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../dlattach/attach/96507/)

IS THIS THE SCHEMATIC DATED 12 MARCH 2011

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96508/ (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../dlattach/attach/96508/)



YES OR  NO  ??



Fuzzy
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on March 16, 2012, 03:05:31 PM
To the 380 reader in the last 4 hours...  ;)

Does anybody know what its called when you do that?  :o :o :o Anyone? :o

Mags

The word you're looking for Mags (I think) is libel: "libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed"

Yep, that's probably it...

Um, anybody know where to get cheap 12v batteries, mosfets, and signal generators? (Do I NEED the 'math' function for this to work?)
I think because we (our modern world) have the circuit designing software, that not enough people have tried to actually physically build Rosemary's circuit. I would like to satisfy myself on the matter, I just have no idea how I will afford 6 identical 12v batteries. Or a signal generator... How much do the mosfets cost? Do I need two scopes (four channels?)?

A regular reader of this obnoxiously long thread ;)

PC

P.S. It seems like there is the beginning of a consensus here for some 'definitive' tests?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 16, 2012, 03:37:18 PM
Hi member and guests,

For those idiot "PIN" heads that think I don't know what I'm talking about.

A link to my Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 testing and evaluation
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120 (https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460%21120)

Twenty two (22) scope shots, tests, schematics, photos, equipment used .... EVERYTHING ALL IN ONE PLACE !!!! NOT SCATTERED LIKE DOG CRAP IN A BACK YARD !!!

Fuzzy
 8)

added -

Or how about some five (5) Hour "NON STOP" video's  .....

http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646 (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 16, 2012, 05:34:08 PM
Hey Phi, Give me a highphive on that one.  I know what it is. I just wanted to give someone else a chance to "pin" the tail on the donkey. 

Now, let me see what Flapjackbatter this kitty is vomiting here NEXT. If the kitty is wearing these (  8) ), then it shouldnt be that difficult.  Because most of these  8) are lying or bending the truth, to cover up and discourage the truth.  And considering things so far, I choose to follow that pattern. :o   We will see.  ;)   Its just a matter of paying very close attention to the details. And the continuous insults are usually part of that pattern. That is the first sign. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 16, 2012, 06:48:39 PM
Hi member and guests,

For those idiot "PIN" heads that think I don't know what I'm talking about.

A link to my Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 testing and evaluation
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120 (https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460%21120)

Twenty two (22) scope shots, tests, schematics, photos, equipment used .... EVERYTHING ALL IN ONE PLACE !!!! NOT SCATTERED LIKE DOG CRAP IN A BACK YARD !!!

Fuzzy
 8)

added -

Or how about some five (5) Hour "NON STOP" video's  .....

http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646 (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646)



All your posts seem to about proving yourself right, rather than getting to the truth.  It is all about what you have said before, blah blah blah, told you so, etc.  Nobody cares if you are vindicated or not, and only a very narcissistic person would fail to realize this.


People care about the truth.  And if you care about free energy, you would work on trying to prove Rosemary right rather than trying to prove her wrong.  The world is already full of free energy devices that do not work, we do not need another one.  Try to make it work rather than make it fail.  Maybe you can come up with an improvement.  So what if it is only, say, COP=4 rather than COP>17.  Work on making it COP>17.  That is what I am going to do.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 16, 2012, 07:37:53 PM

All your posts seem to about proving yourself right, rather than getting to the truth.  It is all about what you have said before, blah blah blah, told you so, etc.  Nobody cares if you are vindicated or not, and only a very narcissistic person would fail to realize this.

People care about the truth.  And if you care about free energy, you would work on trying to prove Rosemary right rather than trying to prove her wrong.  The world is already full of free energy devices that do not work, we do not need another one.  Try to make it work rather than make it fail.  Maybe you can come up with an improvement.  So what if it is only, say, COP=4 rather than COP>17.  Work on making it COP>17.  That is what I am going to do.

It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.

Fuzzy
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 16, 2012, 08:41:31 PM
It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.

Fuzzy
 8)


Then you are not helping.  Free energy does not need more naysayers.  The whole world is full of you people.  You are not being clever or original.  You parrot what 99.99% of the world's educated community already insists, that you cannot get more out than in, that fundamental laws of the universe do not allow such things, that controlled experiments are needed with "proper scientific methods."


Well I can tell you, I am sick of these proper experiments and proper scientific methods and controls and measurements.  What have they ever gotten the free energy community?  Nothing.  Every device ever tested by "proper" methods has turned out to not produce energy.


So I say put an end to these "tests" and "physics formulas" and "maths."  It is time to engage ourselves with the power of positive thinking and pure human energy and willpower.  That's where the secret of overunity lies, and we can start right here and right now with this clever circuit by Rosemary.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 16, 2012, 11:46:03 PM
It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.

Fuzzy
 8)

See folks, they will spend years and years bashing Rose. They will buy cameras for her. They will build false circuits, claiming that they are replications. And for what?

"That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.   

Well Kitty, You will have to bare the burden of truth also to make your claims..

In fact, you would have to build the circuit to spec, get all the recommended equipment, and show just as much data, and more, just to prove your claim. And get that new web camera rolling while your at it. Hey, it was your great Idea to do so. Hypocrite? No?


Otherwise, if you cannot uphold your claims to the standards that you expect from Rose, then what does that say about your claim? Hypocrite comes to mind. Lazy? Or just  8)

So until you have lived up to your own standards, your muttering is, well, just muttering. ;]


I think that is all for now.   :o ;)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2012, 12:37:24 AM
Rosemary, some points that require clarification:

Quote
1) We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation.
Please specify what is meant by "an identical oscillation" and anything that my be implied.

Quote
1.2) The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required.
How much is sufficient? Maybe you should reference a real number?

Quote
2) We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.
Please specify what is meant by "equivalent results" and anything that may be implied.

Quote
3) Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.
So you wish to test at a power at or below 50W, ok. What do you mean by "out of control"?

Quote
4) Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.

4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.
I would suggest that new batteries be purchased, and that their amp-hour rating be no more than 2 amp-hours (sealed lead acid batteries are available down to 0.8 amp-hour). This way each test run should only require a couple of hours or so to complete.

Quote
5) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source. This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
6) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
9) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
Please, for the record, state what your claim is for this battery drawdown test.

Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 17, 2012, 01:05:21 AM

I would suggest that new batteries be purchased, and that their amp-hour rating be no more than 2 amp-hours (sealed lead acid batteries are available down to 0.8 amp-hour). This way each test run should only require a couple of hours or so to complete.


Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

In order to have an accurate replication, you or anybody will need those silver oxides Rose used.  Arent we always told that if we are going to replicate a claim, that we should try and not introduce any changes in order to achieve the same results as the original device? Or even to prove it to be a fake, or mistaken claim?

I might have been like, wellll, I dunno, if you had said 12ah or 20ah. But 2AH  na, not even close.

And your assumption that it would take a couple hours or so to complete the test using the 2ah batteries, is just that. You are assuming. But you say it like it is fact.

And the only way you would know that for sure is if you have done a full blown replication with all the goodies, so on and so forth. just as much as Rose. Plus all of the tests that you have requested through the years, as they are important to your case or you would not have posted them. Right?  ;)

Just sayin.  ;D And in the nicest way.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2012, 01:11:51 AM
You may be right about the battery type, but to date, I have never seen Rosemary make that a requirement, have you?

Rosemary suggested that smaller capacity batteries could be used. From a technical point of view, what is your objection to a 2 amp-hour battery?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 17, 2012, 02:03:07 AM
You may be right about the battery type, but to date, I have never seen Rosemary make that a requirement, have you?

Rosemary suggested that smaller capacity batteries could be used. From a technical point of view, what is your objection to a 2 amp-hour battery?

Well, if Rose says it could work, then she is not sure of it. Its not a fact yet that it will work.  Details.  ;)

There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?  ;)   

Lets say for example, we have a dime and the earth.  If we try to pump electrons into the dime and measured the current from start till full, and then we do the same with the earth, which test would have shown more current flow for how long? When dealing with HF AC and batteries, Im sure there are things to find out.

My casual point is, it may be easier for the larger batteries to take on a charge compared to a smaller battery, just because of the vast differences in the reservoirs.

With the batteries, I cant say this is fact or not.  But if the 2ah test does not work, those batteries will be in question. Better to do it right and gitter dun already. Then if it does work, if the interest was there to find out, try the 2ah and see if things are different.

If it doesnt work if you try the 2ah first, you dont really have the choice of not buying both sets of batteries to come to an absolute conclusion.


There is a name for it.  Ripple    ;) That is the difference.  And it could be enough to make a difference in this circuit claim. So why take the chance? With so much invested already.  Its up to you.  I wont argue this any further. I dont have more reasons to.

Mags

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 17, 2012, 02:06:18 AM
The batteries are silver calcium, not silver oxide as I said mistakenly. Thanks Kitty
Ok, that is settled. all in 1 post.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 02:27:27 AM
Guys - NOTA BENE

. If, subsequent to publication of a paper - an author finds his claim is incorrect then he is required to withdraw publication
. This to uphold the principle and integrity required, not only of that published scientist but of claims related to all scientific findings
. Glen Lettenmaier - who here hides behind the identity of Fuzzy Tom Cat published the following on his Scribd File
. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)
. This CLAIMS to be a replication of an earlier COP>17 test - as detailed in the introduction.
. He subsequently DENIES that it is a replication
. Therefore, by rights, he needs must withdraw that publication.
. I would STRONGLY advise anyone reading here to copy that opening paragraph
. This, because being unprincipled he is likely, retrospectively, to modify or delete this subsequent to this post.
. I have - pro temp - made my own copy of this.
. It unequivocally states that it is a replication of an earlier COP>17 test.

Therefore IF he is now stating that it is NOT a replication then he NEEDS MUST REMOVE THAT PUBLICATION.
Moving on

. You will notice that my name is first on that list of authors.  This indicates that I'm what is known of as 'first author'.
. As first author it is acknowledged that the paper was initiated, motivated and guided by me.
. I, in fact, wrote two thirds of that paper in conjuction with another author.
. Harvey Gramm wrote an astonishing one third of it -  related to entirely extraneous principles
. All of which should have been omitted or subjected to some kind of editorial paring as it was excessive.
. The results of those tests were averaged in an entirely inappropriate and non-standard convention which I resisted.
. This was done deliberately to average the results down as they were, in fact, greater than the stated COP>4
. That paper was rejected.  We were required to submit to TIE within the IEEE group of publications.
. This required a rewrite which paper was then published on my own Scribd file.

added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 02:28:34 AM
. Scribd authorities cannot deny the right to any one or all of those collaborators publishing - wherever they like
. Provided only that its collaboration is acknowledged.  In other words it acknowledges all authors
. This under the protection of rules related to collaborative publications.
. Glen Lettenmaier must have advised Scribd authorities that this was exclusively his own work
. That it did not fall under the rules of a collaboration
. Because I was advised under threat of possible action against me - that my publication of the paper was DISALLOWED
. Effectively Glen has STOLEN ownership of a paper in which he has not written a SINGLE sentence.
. And not a one of us can publish or access this - our own paper and our own work -  on Scribd without first taking this matter to Court. 
. An international action on this would require an expensive litigation procedure that I am entirely reluctant to engage in.

IF Glen Lettenmaier no longer claims this as a replication then he is claiming it as his discovery.  In either event he needs must withdraw that paper.  THEN he can claim what he likes.  Because my name will NOT then be associated with his duplicity.  Unfortunately, right now, and notwithstanding the clear and wanton deceptions related to this - my name is INTIMATELY related to his.  It is a matter of enduring shame that I ever engaged with a man who is so entirely lacking in principle.

The ultimate irony of this is that  I am accused - in page after page - by him - of being duplicitous.  I've said this before.  God help us all.  I haven't even touched on the thread that he and Harvey Gramm started on Energetic Forum where they publicly CLAIMED that their earlier results were ERRONEOUS and that they could not longer support that early claim.  Nor can I prove it.  They've REMOVED all those posts and now use it as an alternative hate blog against me.  LOL.  It is all too disgusting to speak of.  Yet it seems I must speak of it.  It is my opinion that Glen Lettenmaier is a scoundrel.  But that is with the caveat that it is ONLY my opinion.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 02:36:42 AM
Guys - those are the facts.  It would entirely dominate this thread to engage in a discussion of it.  I'm only recording it here as my rights to advise you all of my own position and under some crying need to do something to salvage this history and my reputation along with it.  I am entitled to defend my good name.  It would have been easier for me to make this information available under PM's to Magsy - as he has asked for clarification.  But I wanted no part of 'whispers'.  Therefore have I made my stance public.  As Glen is trying to dominate this thread with his own opinions.  It is as clear as daylight that the man is utterly unprincipled and that he is trying to kill off this thread.  I assure you all.  Those of you who object to his continually posting about the issue from whichever stand that he tries to occupy - that the ONLY way to manage this is to IGNORE his posts.  He is driven to destroy this thread.  He is determined to usurp this technology.  Strangely, he seems to think that his tactics are likely to succeed.  Else why would he do this?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2012, 02:43:37 AM
Rosemary, you wrote:

Quote
4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.
I agree. I have suggested a 2 amp-hour sealed lead acid battery.

What type of battery and amp-hour rating would you be considering for this test?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2012, 02:47:09 AM
There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?  ;)   

I have an answer for that question, but let's give Rosemary herself an opportunity to speak to the question of battery type and minimum amp-hour rating.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 02:53:15 AM
Poynty Point.  This is my proposed test.  I've looked everywhere.  Why are you not commenting?

SO  AGAIN.  Here's the proposed with the omission of the 555 test as we'll be using an ungrounded plug for the function generator.

. We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.
. Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

Rosie Pose
 :(
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 03:02:41 AM
And Guys, I see that the preferred battery is being discussed.

I will need to talk to some experts about this and possibly even our manufacturers.  My intention is to find those that can reliably generate a strong current flow in line with it's ratings.  When I've found such I'll post details of it here.  My hope is to get these donated again.  It's all in the interests of open source and I'm reasonably satisfied that those batteries will be well advertised.  So.  Hold your horses.  I'll see what I can come up with.

Unless one of you lot can do this for me?  Or in conjunction with me?  Either way.  I think we should look into all options.

Kindest regards,
Rosie ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2012, 03:03:02 AM
Poynty Point.  This is my proposed test.  I've looked everywhere.  Why are you not commenting?

You missed it then. Reply #1078

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 03:08:23 AM
No Poynty Point.  That post has nothing to do with me.  Nor, for that matter has this.  I thought we'd undertaken some rules here Poynty. I am under no obligation to address any posts that are not addressed to me.  And I certainly WON'T acknowledge them when my own posts are IGNORED.  Kindly NOTE the amended list.  And then COMMENT.  Then I'll comment on your proposed amendments.  You see how it works Poynty?  That way you'll not be in any danger of talking to yourself.  And that way I'll find that I'm not wasting my time when I post here.

You missed it then. Reply #1078

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662)

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2012, 03:12:30 AM
No Poynty Point.  That post has nothing to do with me.  Nor, for that matter has this.  I thought we'd undertaken some rules here Poynty. I am under no obligation to address any posts that are not addressed to me.  And I certainly WON'T acknowledge them when my own posts are IGNORED.  Kindly NOTE the amended list.  And then COMMENT.  Then I'll comment on your proposed amendments.  You see how it works Poynty?  That way you'll not be in any danger of talking to yourself.  And that way I'll find that I'm not wasting my time when I post here.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, I don't understand. That post's first line is this:

"Rosemary, some points that require clarification:"

Is that not addressing you?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 03:16:58 AM
That is NOT the bullet scheduled list that I'm referring to.  I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER related to my list scheduled above.  Not even the amendment you seem to require of numbering those items.  I get the distinct impression that you're passing over the required changes that I propose.  And I'm inclined to think that this is deliberate.  Are my proposals simply to be ignored?  That's a bit harsh Poynty Point.

I think you'll agree that I need to cater to Harti's 'grounding' concerns.  I've done so.  There is, therefore, no need for the 555 test.  I would have thought?

Again,
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, I don't understand. That post's first line is this:

"Rosemary, some points that require clarification:"

Is that not addressing you?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 03:21:15 AM
And may I add this. 

This post of yours Poynty Point is entirely COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.  IF you have any concerns at all SHARE THEM.  Do not try and put my competence at test.  It is tiresome and insulting.  We are not here to 'dance to your tune'.  We're here to discuss and engage.  Nothing else.  I thought we'd agreed to OSTENSIBLY drop our 'agendas' in the interest of furthering this discussion.  Therefore?  Kindly keep your comments appropriate.

Rosie Posie,
 8)
I have an answer for that question, but let's give Rosemary herself an opportunity to speak to the question of battery type and minimum amp-hour rating.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2012, 03:48:35 AM
Rosemary,

Please review the following comments on your complete proposed protocol. I hope you don't mind, but I've numbered your points for easier reference.


Quote
1) We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.
OK.

Quote
2) Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
I agree, the lower the rating, the less time will be required to complete the tests. As a side note, I have no preference as to battery type.

Quote
3) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source. This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
4) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
5) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
OK.

Quote
6) We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously.
OK.

Quote
7) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
Please, for the record, state what your claim is for this battery drawdown test.

Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

Quote
8] We then recharge all those batteries.
OK.

Quote
9) We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
OK.

Quote
10) We re-run those tests. This to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.
OK.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 04:17:58 AM
Poynty - your points 2 - 3 and 4 DEFINITELY need more clarity.  If you can manage this feel free.  I think you know what I'm inferring.  Else I'll tackle it on Sunday.  It'll take more time and energy than I can manage at the moment.

Regarding the battery draw down test.  That also needs more clarity.  It relates to the the proposed current path that I've tried to detail in an earlier post here and that was also rather overlooked.  I'm not 'punting' the thesis.  I'm trying to show you all WHY I insist ONLY on the anomaly that relates to our measurements.  Please read it Poynty.  But I need to elaborate on it.  But also.  I think I've finally found a way of explaining this that you guys - electronic experts - can understand.  I hope so.  It seems somewhat clearer when I analyse it like that.  Let me knw.  We absolutely CANNOT claim that the battery lasts forever.  Yet that's CERTAINLY what the measurements state.  What we know is that the batteries outlast a control.  Significantly.  Which is why I'm happy to assert a partial loss.  And unable to claim a complete gain as required - apparently - by those measurements.

At least READ those posts of mine.  I'm relying on this.  Of all our contributors - only you and PhiChaser are likely to be interested.

Regards
Rosie
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 04:30:25 AM
@AbbaRue: It's nice to see that you got the point of the video demonstration. I hope you watched _all_ the videos, and that you have sufficient electronic knowledge to understand what the significance is of inserting a capacitor in series with the FG. I suggest that Rosemary try this on her system, since we know that it won't affect the signal generator's switching of the mosfets, it will only interrupt the DC current path through the FG.
@Mags: Did you watch _all_ the videos? It doesn't sound like it.
You are making statements like you are flailing around looking for something to grip onto. The circuit is exactly as I show in the diagram in the later videos, the monitoring points are clearly indicated, and the reduced battery voltage makes the FG's contribution obvious, whereas the offset needed to display the contribution on Rosemary's scope traces hides what is really happening unless you look very closely at the channel offset values on the screenshots.


And I find it completely hilarious that Rosemary wants somebody to withdraw or retract something, when SHE HERSELF has STILL NOT RETRACTED THE CLAIMS made in the following quote:
Quote
We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

I also find it completely hilarious that NOBODY, or at least nobody who is talking, who has ACTUALLY BUILT and TESTED, or even rigorously simulated, Rosemary's various circuits, has been able to reproduce her "overunity" claims, even while reproducing some of her measurements. And the people who support her currently have not built her devices nor tested anything like them, evidently. And the people  who have supported her in the past, like Astweth, like Harvey, even like Glen..... no longer support her claims.

Why is that, I wonder?

(Not really. It's because her claims are bogus.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 17, 2012, 04:38:27 AM
And may I add this. 

This post of yours Poynty Point is entirely COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.  IF you have any concerns at all SHARE THEM.  Do not try and put my competence at test.  It is tiresome and insulting.  We are not here to 'dance to your tune'.  We're here to discuss and engage.  Nothing else.  I thought we'd agreed to OSTENSIBLY drop our 'agendas' in the interest of furthering this discussion.  Therefore?  Kindly keep your comments appropriate.

Rosie Posie,
 8)



He was letting you make the decision as to what batteries can be used. I think it is a courtesy to you from him.  But if you havent tried these 2ah batteries yet Rose, then we cannot assume that the circuit will work to your specifications for sure.

It is your call really.  Its your baby. ;)

But what if it doesnt work for them with these 2ah batteries? Then we are at square one, with your approval be satisfied with the results by suggesting that the batteries will work. that will be the story afterwards. ;)

Mags

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 04:41:06 AM
@AbbaRue: you speak of scope probe leads picking up noise and showing that instead of circuit behavior. You must then explain why my circuit doesn't oscillate when I change to the mosfets that require more gate charge to switch, and you really should look at the photos of Rosemary's circuit as tested that made those scope shots of hers. Stray oscillations due to rat's nest wiring? Any circuit designer will warn you about that in a mosfet amplifier..... especially with casually parallelled mosfets.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 04:51:37 AM
He was letting you make the decision as to what batteries can be used. I think it is a courtesy to you from him.  But if you havent tried these 2ah batteries yet Rose, then we cannot assume that the circuit will work to your specifications for sure.

It is your call really.  Its your baby. ;)

But what if it doesnt work for them with these 2ah batteries? Then we are at square one, with your approval be satisfied with the results by suggesting that the batteries will work. that will be the story afterwards. ;)

Mags

Magsy I've answered this.  I'll repost it. 

And Guys, I see that the preferred battery is being discussed.

I will need to talk to some experts about this and possibly even our manufacturers.  My intention is to find those that can reliably generate a strong current flow in line with it's ratings.  When I've found such I'll post details of it here.  My hope is to get these donated again.  It's all in the interests of open source and I'm reasonably satisfied that those batteries will be well advertised.  So.  Hold your horses.  I'll see what I can come up with.

Unless one of you lot can do this for me?  Or in conjunction with me?  Either way.  I think we should look into all options.

Kindest regards,
Rosie ;D

I was not objecting to the discussion. Only the fact the tone of his 'challenge'.  I've addressed that too.  But so has Poynty.  LOl

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 05:09:28 AM
LOL TK,

I see this now.  My open admission of an math error requires a public retraction of all claims made on this technology as it represents a severe felony intended to defraud the public of their money.  While Glen Lettenmaiers theft of an entire paper represents a minor infringement of copyright and requires no retraction at all.  The more so as this minor infringement was only managed on the representation of affidavits to the Scribd authorities that the paper under question represents his own work exclusively.  And then.  Come to think of it.  He's denied the claims published in that paper.  Even more cause not to retract it.  Else people would start assuming that he's principled.  God forbid.

Rosie Pose


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 05:15:44 AM
Your "open admission" of a math error? Do you mean when you said your "calculations may have been a tad out" without specifying which ones, how they were "out" and what the corrected values are?

No, that's not a retraction or an open admission.

To refresh your memory, you are STILL CLAIMING that your circuit delivered 25 million Joules to 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. And this is more than a "tad out", it is in fact "out" by a factor of something like SEVENTY FIVE TIMES, and the conclusion, that your battery didn't contain enough energy to do it, is FALSE. And since you are still making the claim.... it is a LIE.

Now let me see you admit these things, and THAT will be a proper retraction.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 05:17:52 AM
Your "open admission" of a math error? Do you mean when you said your "calculations may have been a tad out" without specifying which ones, how they were "out" and what the corrected values are?

No, that's not a retraction or an open admission.

To refresh your memory, you are STILL CLAIMING that your circuit delivered 25 million Joules to 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. And this is more than a "tad out", it is in fact "out" by a factor of something like SEVENTY FIVE TIMES, and the conclusion, that your battery didn't contain enough energy to do it, is FALSE. And since you are still making the claim.... it is a LIE.

Now let me see you admit these things, and THAT will be a proper retraction.

Is this your opinion?  Tk?  It's very interesting. 
With all my love,

Rosie Posie

 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 05:23:26 AM
No, it's your claim, Rosemary. Once again:
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

True, or not? Which parts are wrong, how are they wrong, and what is the correction?


IS A JOULE REALLY A WATT PER SECOND?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 05:26:20 AM

I also find it completely hilarious that NOBODY, or at least nobody who is talking, who has ACTUALLY BUILT and TESTED, or even rigorously simulated, Rosemary's various circuits, has been able to reproduce her "overunity" claims, even while reproducing some of her measurements. And the people who support her currently have not built her devices nor tested anything like them, evidently. And the people  who have supported her in the past, like Astweth, like Harvey, even like Glen..... no longer support her claims.

Why is that, I wonder?

(Not really. It's because her claims are bogus.)

And as for this?  I think that the Scribd paper most CERTAINLY shows reproducibility of our claim.  Check it out.  It's VERY specific.  And what other 'men'? - which is a grossly loose and generalised application of the term - are there that no longer support me?- other than 'people' (another gross abuse of the term) such as HARVEY AND ASHTWETH AND GLEN?  I think that's about the lot.  And we all know what their motives are.  Ashtweth CLAIMED that he was involved in writing that paper.  As does Glen.  And poor Harvey only managed to add so much extraneous information that - had that paper been published - I would have had to pay a penalty of some many thousands of rands. 

Golly.
Again and as ever, your very own
Rosie, Posie
Pose.

 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 05:28:48 AM
No, it's your claim, Rosemary. Once again:
True, or not? Which parts are wrong, how are they wrong, and what is the correction?


IS A JOULE REALLY A WATT PER SECOND?

I've given this question all the attention that it deserves. You are littering this thread with your irrelevancies.  And it is detracting from it.

Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 05:30:26 AM
The word you're looking for Mags (I think) is libel: "libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed"

Yep, that's probably it...

Um, anybody know where to get cheap 12v batteries, mosfets, and signal generators? (Do I NEED the 'math' function for this to work?)
I think because we (our modern world) have the circuit designing software, that not enough people have tried to actually physically build Rosemary's circuit. I would like to satisfy myself on the matter, I just have no idea how I will afford 6 identical 12v batteries. Or a signal generator... How much do the mosfets cost? Do I need two scopes (four channels?)?

A regular reader of this obnoxiously long thread ;)

PC

P.S. It seems like there is the beginning of a consensus here for some 'definitive' tests?

Let's see.... you are such an avid electronic hobbyist that you have now decided, finally, to go out and purchase some basic bench test equipment. That's excellent. I hope you begin at the beginning with Rosemary's circuit and claims... like I did.

You might be interested, before you start accusing people of libel, to go to my YT channel and watch ALL of my videos concerning Rosemary Ainslie, her claims, and the work of several people, some of whom are still looking in and posting here. Most of them begin with the heading "Electric OU" in the title.

By the way, the IRFPG50 Mosfet that I bought today cost me 6.40 US plus tax. The last batch I bought I got from DigiKey in a lot of 10 so I think the price was only about 50 bucks for the lot.

And I think.... that if you are asking these questions... that you have a LOT to learn, and I  know that you will have fun doing it. Good luck. Watch my videos, if you can stand it. Some of them go to a very basic level to try to explain to other people what is happening: This is ON, this is OFF.....

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 05:32:46 AM
I've given this question all the attention that it deserves. You are littering this thread with your irrelevancies.  And it is detracting from it.

Rosie Pose.

You are talking about power and energy measurements in a device which you CLAIM has put 25 million Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes, and you clearly do not understand what a Joule is... and you think that's irrelevant to this thread?

You really are a piece of work.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 05:37:12 AM
Everyone please note:

I have ALWAYS encouraged anyone with the skill and the wit and the kit to build and test Rosemary's claims for themselves. Go ahead and do it. Show your work, share it, and there is enough expertise here so that you can get it right. Just do it.

I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes using her circuit, as she has claimed she has done, over and over.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 05:43:06 AM
Everyone please note:

I have ALWAYS encouraged anyone with the skill and the wit and the kit to build and test Rosemary's claims for themselves. Go ahead and do it. Show your work, share it, and there is enough expertise here so that you can get it right. Just do it.

I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes using her circuit, as she has claimed she has done, over and over.
My dear TK - I think this needs a minor editing.  If you don't mind I'll attend to it.

>>I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes as I keep claiming that she claims that she has done, over and over.

LOL

As ever,
Rosie Pose
 :-* :D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 17, 2012, 05:52:19 AM
Hey Tk

I have some questions..   a questions about the circuit, not of your doings,in your honest opinion  ;)

The Rose circuit you show in the vid Abba posted. the one you show to be what is on the table.

Was thinking about when you took the battery out.  If you take away all of the circuit except for the 2 fets and the sig gen.

Is the oscillation still there?  It doesnt need the battery potential connected in any way?
And if so, the inductor is meaningless as to having this oscillation?

And if the oscillation still exists, with or without the rest of the circuit(battery included), does that same oscillation even feed into or affect the rest of the circuit as to show the oscillations at the load and the battery?

Also, What battery voltage and signal level did Rose use in that particular circuit?
And what was the estimated power out at the load you have figured vs Roses claim of output to the load?

Also, what purpose does the inductor play in all of this in your opinion? Does it affect the circuit in any way and how, in and out of the circuit?




And finally, 1 about the inductor/transformer. And actually, this one is about your doings...

Do you agree that my description of what is going on with the transformer with the leds across the primary(said inductor) and one on the secondary was accurate?

And if so, does it affect the outcome in any way as compared to just using an inductor there as prescribed?

I havnt ever said nor admitted that I know how the oscillations are occurring or if it works for sure.

But with so little knowledge of Roses circuit, I could pick apart things that just dont add up with the arguments against her. With not one of you actually building it properly, yet the conclusions are galore. Thats not right. I dont care what Rose says,does, nor has done, if the assumptions from the angry crowd are not held up by due diligence, but short cuts. Whether its sims, not the same circuit, or just not doing anything at all, to show what she has shown is all wrong.

The three readers here just may feel the same way. But what if one of you gave a full presentation such as Rose has?  Its a lot of work there.

You and some may disagree. But what of the 3 readers? Your audience. You are all visible to them.
 
Some will fall for the insults and assume Rose is the bad guy. Thats what insults are for. That is the intent. And only idiots follow that leader. But that proves nothing. Its just politics. lol if there were no readers, there would be none of this I suppose. But since there are, "Ya Gotta Givem What They Want" attitude appears..  If it were not for the audience, the insults would be of little effect to reaching the final goal, except to show what kind of person you really are. And that happens also with an audience.  ;) So are the insults really productive? Well Im an audience member and I am disappointed in what I see.
I dont count? The 3 readers dont count? What about the real numbers of readers?

Remember when you busted Mylow?  Even though ya knew it was a fake, yet didnt know that there was fishing line yet(as far as I know), your replication was not really the same.
Maybe it was because you felt you knew it was all a joke.

But if you came across something that interested you. Would you still produce a replica that is fairly off from the original, and if it didnt work, then lay the claim that it wont work?  Is this the new status quo? Seems quite unproductive. Is this the new standard in science?  ;)

Mags

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 06:23:57 AM
Magsy - I never knew anything at all about the Mylow fiasco.  But what I can tell you as fact is that a very dear friend of mine is entirely satisfied that the 'fishing line' was 'put in' deliberately.  I'm not in a position to say - one way or another.  But he and his friends are satisfied that this was done.

What's confusing is that this 'perpetual motor' has now been claimed by a South African group (NOT US I HASTEN TO ADD) who - for all we know - are applying some of those Mylow principles.  In other words they were not put out by the debunk that TK presented.  Then you must remember this.  Cold fusion burst onto the scene in the late 80's.  It was VOCIFEROUSLY DENIED and EXPERIMENTALLY DISPROVED.  Yet it has now re-emerged and is being endorsed as a study by those at MIT as well as other HIGHLY accredited academies.  I think the lesson is this.  There is no way under God's sun that any new technologies will NOT be progressed - with or without 'nay sayers'. 

Also bear in mind that the nay sayers on the cold fusion number are now - to a man - utterly disgraced in the public eye.  TK will have a lot to answer to - in due course.  But for now his overriding drive is to entirely discredit both me and the technology.  And he ONLY knows these techniques of 'in your face rudeness'.  But what he hasn't realised yet is that too much of it - any excess - and the public start wondering what gives.  And this, in turn, allows a technology to be tested on its merits and NOT on the heresay of those that seem to have a compulsive need to DENY ALL.

Is my take.  Which also means - kudos to Poynty and to Harti.  They're allowing the facts to unfold.  Not the claims about those facts.  And that's actually how it should be.  What TK is doing is 'implying' that there's nothing to show.  But he's skewed his test.  He's like that Dr Vest who went to some lengths to disprove cold fusion.  You cannot 'disprove' a valid test.  Can't be done.  It WILL inevitably be tested by others.  You can't put a lid on it.  And IF there's merit in the claim - then it CAN be replicated.  Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing.

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 17, 2012, 07:08:40 AM
hey rose

Yea, a lot of us were on Mylows case. From hand jobs, fishing lines to off balancing. He did it all. In the end there were multiple times that the fishing line was noticeable.

Yeah it is funny. Supposedly mit had successful tests back when and covered up. Then Rossi comes along, and after, mit again says yes it works, then Rossi goes down for the count. Just waitng for mit to take it all back again.


"Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing."

Oh. Id like to read up on that.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 07:38:16 AM
My dear TK - I think this needs a minor editing.  If you don't mind I'll attend to it.

>>I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes as I keep claiming that she claims that she has done, over and over.

LOL

As ever,
Rosie Pose
 :-* :D

So these are not your words, or you have posted a correction somewhere and I haven't noticed? Link please.
(This is a quote from your post in this very thread, #666).
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Twenty five point six MILLION JOULES.  Your words, your claim, your lie, until you retract it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 08:36:52 AM
Hey Tk

I have some questions..   a questions about the circuit, not of your doings,in your honest opinion  ;)

The Rose circuit you show in the vid Abba posted. the one you show to be what is on the table.

Was thinking about when you took the battery out.  If you take away all of the circuit except for the 2 fets and the sig gen.

Is the oscillation still there?  It doesnt need the battery potential connected in any way?
And if so, the inductor is meaningless as to having this oscillation?
If you watch the later videos, you can see what happens when I disconnect the battery, and also when I remove the inductor. And if you watch even later videos, you can see that the oscillation goes away when I use a different mosfet. Rosemary seems confused by the fact that I had to twist the pins around to make it a plug-in replacement for the 2n7000.... explaining to her that pinouts differ in the two different case styles is going to be difficult, I can tell.
Quote

And if the oscillation still exists, with or without the rest of the circuit(battery included), does that same oscillation even feed into or affect the rest of the circuit as to show the oscillations at the load and the battery?
I'm afraid I don't understand this part of your question. The oscillations are all through the circuit. They can be read at the current viewing shunt, at the battery terminals as I have done, and everywhere else you might look. Just as Rosemary has shown with her  multiple scope traces all showing the exact same waveforms that I am showing.
Quote

Also, What battery voltage and signal level did Rose use in that particular circuit?
You are asking me? Shouldn't you be asking her? All I know is that proper calculations using the data she claimed in the quote I keep asking her about.... indicate that her claim is false, and not by just a "tad" either.
Quote
And what was the estimated power out at the load you have figured vs Roses claim of output to the load?
Well, she claims to be putting out over 4000 Watts to the load. 25 million Joules in 100 minutes, remember? And I claim that it's really only about 56 Watts or so, and that her battery pack could do thirty or more such tests before showing a drop below 12 volts each in a no-load test. And she claims the single test uses 2 and a half times the energy in the battery, and I say it doesn't.

Of course that's not what you mean though. You want me to "admit" that the power levels in my test aren't comparable to Rosemary's. This is obvious, isn't it? As obvious as the fact that her circuit isn't putting out four kilowatts into her water load as she has continued to claim.
Quote
Also, what purpose does the inductor play in all of this in your opinion? Does it affect the circuit in any way and how, in and out of the circuit?
I was really surprised to see that in my instantiation of Rosemary's circuit, the inductor value didn't seem to make much difference. As you see in the later video I can remove it entirely without hurting the oscillations. I tried little tiny microHenry inductors and bigger ones, and I finally used that choke because it had the secondary winding that did interesting things. The lack of characteristic inductive collapse spikes in the traces Rosemary has shown should indicate that the inductance has little role in her demonstration either.

Quote
And finally, 1 about the inductor/transformer. And actually, this one is about your doings...

Do you agree that my description of what is going on with the transformer with the leds across the primary(said inductor) and one on the secondary was accurate?
Almost. Except that when the voltage is below the forward voltage of the LEDs it is as though they aren't there at all.  However, taking the one on the secondary off, turning it around and reinserting it didn't seem to affect anything at all.
Quote
And if so, does it affect the outcome in any way as compared to just using an inductor there as prescribed?

I havnt ever said nor admitted that I know how the oscillations are occurring or if it works for sure.

But with so little knowledge of Roses circuit, I could pick apart things that just dont add up with the arguments against her. With not one of you actually building it properly, yet the conclusions are galore. Thats not right. I dont care what Rose says,does, nor has done, if the assumptions from the angry crowd are not held up by due diligence, but short cuts. Whether its sims, not the same circuit, or just not doing anything at all, to show what she has shown is all wrong.
The purpose of my videos is to illustrate some of the problems with the circuit itself. Dealing with the performance claims will come later, once Rosemary clarifies just what the claims are... (see the 25 megaJoule quote). I have illustrated that: there is a DC current path that is not monitored by the scopes and shunts and so forth, that there are feedback oscillations that can occur, and with Rosemary's rats-nest wiring probably are occurring for that reason alone, and in the video I just uploaded, that a Function Generator can indeed charge a battery whose voltage is higher than the FG's peak-to-peak output, if the offset is manipulated.
Quote

The three readers here just may feel the same way. But what if one of you gave a full presentation such as Rose has?  Its a lot of work there.

You and some may disagree. But what of the 3 readers? Your audience. You are all visible to them.
Have you, too, forgotten all the work and all the presentations I did on Rosemary's first, single mosfet, COP>17 overunity claim? The Quantum magazine article, all that? Well, it's all documented in a long string of vids on my YT channel. I don't know how much more exact a replication could have been. And of course there was no overunity performance, and as usual, Rosemary made many errors in her computations, and at that time didn't even grasp the concept of integration. Calculus-style, that is, not racial integration...
Quote

Some will fall for the insults and assume Rose is the bad guy. Thats what insults are for. That is the intent. And only idiots follow that leader. But that proves nothing. Its just politics. lol if there were no readers, there would be none of this I suppose. But since there are, "Ya Gotta Givem What They Want" attitude appears..  If it were not for the audience, the insults would be of little effect to reaching the final goal, except to show what kind of person you really are. And that happens also with an audience.  ;) So are the insults really productive? Well Im an audience member and I am disappointed in what I see.
I dont count? The 3 readers dont count? What about the real numbers of readers?

Remember when you busted Mylow?  Even though ya knew it was a fake, yet didnt know that there was fishing line yet(as far as I know), your replication was not really the same.
Maybe it was because you felt you knew it was all a joke.
Rosemary is bad, because she's lying about the 25 million Joules, at the very least. Look how she's avoided correcting the math and retracting the claim, even refusing to say "yes" or "no" when asked about it. That's intellectually dishonest and it burns me up... and it should you too. Is it right or wrong? Have you "done the math" yourself on that claim?
And about Mylow: the fishing line idea was first raised by someone other than me. I had already figured out several other ways of doing it, even to the point of making a concealed motor drive that looked just exactly like his base assembly that could be taken apart after a run to show nothing inside. But when the fishing line was suggested, I realized that was the way it was done, and I DID IN FACT replicate it before it was shown to be visible in the photo analyses. I also was the first to replicate his motor, as acknowledged by that weasel Sterling Allen, who didn't give me his promised prize because my replication wasn't "free energy" even though I did it exactly the same way Mylow did. Again, there are pertinent YT videos on my channel, if you've forgotten the sequence of events.
Quote

But if you came across something that interested you. Would you still produce a replica that is fairly off from the original, and if it didnt work, then lay the claim that it wont work?  Is this the new status quo? Seems quite unproductive. Is this the new standard in science?  ;)

Mags
Your straw man is leaking all over the place. Maybe you can get the Wizard of Oz to give you a heart.
I don't  need to do an exact replication to know that in Rosemary's circuit there will be power from the FG coming in. I don't need to do an exact replication to illustrate the effect of a series capacitor on FG mosfet switching. I don't need to do an exact replication to know that a claim of putting over 4 kiloWatts into 900 grams of water for 100 minutes is impossible no matter where the energy is coming from, and I don't need to do an exact replication to know that Rosemary is simply not telling the truth about a lot of stuff.

And once you've had a chance to look over those old videos, can you tell me just what part of my replication of the Quantum article circuit was insufficiently exact? I'd really like to know. Let's see... I used a custom matched load to Rosemary's specifications of inductance and resistance, I used IRFPG50 mosfets, I used a 555 timer circuit EXACTLY AS SHE PUBLISHED, not the various ones that others came up with to fix her inverted duty cycle, and I also used the other 555 circuits and a FG and a pulse generator as well. I used current viewing shunts appropriately and I also showed a groundloop problem in that circuit. I duplicated her reported time-temperature profile almost exactly using HER 555 timer circuit.... and I did a comparison of straight DC versus her circuit at the same power levels (guess the result). I analyzed the energy flows using a digital oscilloscope with 1 GHz bandwidth and integration math. I showed how her "random aperiodic Hartley resonant oscillations" were mostly scope trigger problems and screen aliasing, using the exact same Fluke 123 and 199 ScopeMeters she claimed to have used. I boiled water with the circuit, I charged capacitors with it, I even found a mosfet that worked better than the IRFPG50 in every way including the mechanism by which she claimed the batteries would recharge. (2sk1548, IIRC).
So you can take your straw man argument and stuff it....

Do you know that there are still websites out there that are claiming Rosemary has a patent on the circuit?

Battery Charging with a Function Generator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfE_qY8Yax0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfE_qY8Yax0)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 08:38:41 AM
hey rose
Yeah it is funny. Supposedly mit had successful tests back when and covered up. Then Rossi comes along, and after, mit again says yes it works, then Rossi goes down for the count. Just waitng for mit to take it all back again.

Mags

Where has Rossi gone down for the count?  Because Sterling Allen isn't supporting him?  I'm getting confused here Mags.  I personally don't depend on Sterling's support.  Nor - I see - does Rossi.  And we're talking cold fusion.  There are many more claimants to this than Rossi.  Some of which Sterling appears to support.  He's being rather selective.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 17, 2012, 08:45:43 AM
Hi members and guests,

Being I've asked the question on which NERD RAT device schematic dates go where three times, and never got a response from Rosemary or a NERD RAT team member on the OU forum.


So, I and all concerned NERD RAT device verifiers and replicators will use the obvious COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION video of 12 MARCH 2011 as a reference to the two separate and different schematics without any exceptions.

FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2001_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

12_MARCH_2001_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )


THIS TAKES EFFECT AS OF MARCH 17, 2012 at 12:50 am GMT

Fuzzy
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 17, 2012, 08:52:14 AM
Yeah  thats where I read it. But i went there just now and dont see it. Something about this and that and the other.

I dunno. im beat.  tired. MH says Im off balance. whoa is me. lol

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 08:56:40 AM
Tinsel Koala,

When you can prove that we have - in any way - falsified our data - or misrepresented our numbers - or misrepresented our circuit - or our circuit components - when you can prove that our measuring instruments are faulted - when you can show us that that the battery discharge of current is responsible for the delivery of 1 half of every half of each oscillation - THEN you will have an argument.  Until then - and while Harti permits this level of blatant traducement - calumny - libel - then I propose that any of your readers - treat any claim that you may make with a certain amount of circumspection.

If you want to show any kind of courage - that you are assuming may be lacking in Mags' posts - then show us your own.  We do not know who it is that is this reckless with his opinion.  If I knew who you were I'd ask you to defend these statements in court. So.  IF you plan to stand by these statements - THEN SHOW US WHO YOU ARE.  That would be interesting indeed.  We all want to know - your name - your employer - and what it is that motivates the EXTRAORDINARY lengths you are going to to try and insinuate and allege so much against me, and against this our technology.  It is highly SUSPECT.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2012, 09:18:41 AM
And guys,

I'm likely not able to answer any further posts for the balance of the day.  But I caution you all to take note.  If there was any honour between either Tinsel Koala or Glen Lettenmaier - then they would both require me to continue with this thread and these proposed definitive tests.  What they are doing - with an increasing sense of desperation - is to impose pages of denial on these poor efforts of ours for a reasonable discussion - that the thread is predominantly unreadable.  If there was any sincere desire to find answers they would not dominate this discussion with the irrelevant and 'thin' excuses that take the focus away from our claim.  Their tactics are both clumsy and counter productive.

What is increasingly impossible to understand is that Harti is not only permitting it - but is positively encouraging it.  And I'm afraid that is a puzzle that only Harti can address.  At a guess this thread is more than 2 thirds pure traducement.  And it certainly is not less than 1 half.  Every time they post they are in breach of good manners, scientific research and the desire to explore any claims of over unity which - ostensibly - is the purpose of this forum.  I can do no more than apologise for the mess they make of my threads.  The fact is that these monsters have dogged my every step - from the get go and that they will never allow this a fair chance.  That in itself should speak volumes.

If they are concerned that this is bogus - then it will not be proved by alleging anything at all.  I am afraid that there are hidden mandates and hidden agendas that abound against any over unity claim.  And I can do nothing about so much that is hidden.  It is entirely unreasonable to suppose that either TK or Glen Lettenmaier will go to such extraordinary lengths to disclaim anything at all - unless it is somehow personally impacting on their lives.  And I suspect that it is.  Glen because he wants to claim ownership of this or some variant of this technology.  And TK because his identity and possibly his income is impacted.  Else this simply no longer makes any kind of sense. 

The day started off with a reasonable discussion on the requirements for a test to be conducted.  Three pages later I am still dealing with great washes of calumny - from a poster who hides behind an identity - that puts him out of reach of any kind of accountability.  And he claims that I am unethical.  It is absurd.  What I assure you is that their techniques are working.  And that all this is a disgrace to our over unity drive.  And unless some measures are put in to prevent this - then this thread is doomed.

Kindest regards
Rosemary.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 02:01:05 PM
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

True and correct, Rosemary, or not? Your own words, or not? Calumny, Rosemary? These are YOUR WORDS. Is it ethical to make claims like this one, to fail to correct the errors, and to continue to make the absurd claim based on the errors? IS THAT ETHICAL?

What does my identity have to do with the false statements you make in the quote above?

Why do you not correct your math and your claim and your conclusion? You have had ample opportunity to do so.


TWENTY FIVE MILLION JOULES.... or NOT?

It's a very simple question.... that you have been dodging now for weeks, just as you won't answer Fuzzy about WHICH CIRCUIT WAS ACTUALLY USED.

Unethical for him to ask? Unethical for me to want you to correct your manifest errors? You have a funny definition of "ethical".. but then we've known that for some time, haven't we. I remember you on the Naked Scientists forum, lying about your patent, years ago.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 17, 2012, 02:08:35 PM
Tinsel Koala,

When you can prove that we have - in any way - falsified our data - or misrepresented our numbers - or misrepresented our circuit - or our circuit components - when you can prove that our measuring instruments are faulted - when you can show us that that the battery discharge of current is responsible for the delivery of 1 half of every half of each oscillation - THEN you will have an argument.  Until then - and while Harti permits this level of blatant traducement - calumny - libel - then I propose that any of your readers - treat any claim that you may make with a certain amount of circumspection.

If you want to show any kind of courage - that you are assuming may be lacking in Mags' posts - then show us your own.  We do not know who it is that is this reckless with his opinion.  If I knew who you were I'd ask you to defend these statements in court. So.  IF you plan to stand by these statements - THEN SHOW US WHO YOU ARE.  That would be interesting indeed.  We all want to know - your name - your employer - and what it is that motivates the EXTRAORDINARY lengths you are going to to try and insinuate and allege so much against me, and against this our technology.  It is highly SUSPECT.

Rosemary

Preserved for posterity. I am being accused of calumny and libel because I keep posting this quote of Rosemary's, which contains the basis of her entire set of claims. Be careful, Rosemary. You are telling lies, making false claims, and people who do such things shouldn't be talking about courts of law.

Quote
We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

25.6 MILLION JOULES, Rosemary. That is a lie, and you have not corrected it.

NOTE that I have shown -- PROVEN if you like -- several times in this thread alone, exactly what is wrong with your numbers and your calculations above. So you are lying YET AGAIN when you claim that I haven't done so, precisely and exactly, using your own data as reported here.

Am I wrong in my calculations and explanations? Isn't it funny how nobody has claimed that I am -- except you -- or pointed out where I went wrong. Isn't that funny? Since I am such a rabid debunker, a libeller, a thorn in your side? SHOW THAT I AM WRONG about your 25 point 6 million impossible Joules, then. Repeat your calculations and SHOW THAT I AM WRONG.

And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that I ALWAYS ENCOURAGE OTHERS to build and test Rosemary's circuit for themselves? Is that any way for someone who has an "agenda" to suppress research in "Free Energy" to behave? That I encourage open and comprehensive testing of HER EXACT CIRCUIT, not the one I've got but the one SHE HAS GOT, by people who actually DO know what they are doing and can lay out a circuit properly? Isn't that strange, that I am ALWAYS eager for testing, that I show my work in such clarity that anyone can reproduce what I've done easily, and that I stand by my calculations, or correct them when errors are found?

Is that really any way for a MONSTER to behave?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 17, 2012, 08:30:57 PM
Preserved for posterity. I am being accused of calumny and libel because I keep posting this quote of Rosemary's, which contains the basis of her entire set of claims. Be careful, Rosemary. You are telling lies, making false claims, and people who do such things shouldn't be talking about courts of law.

25.6 MILLION JOULES, Rosemary. That is a lie, and you have not corrected it.



Mr. Koala, I think you are caught in a trap of your own making.  You just want to be proven right, but it does not appear that you are going to get your full satisfaction out of Ms. Ainslee.  I suppose it feels good to be right, so I can see why you do what you do.  But being right by criticizing free energy devices is a little like shooting fish in a barrell.  Pick any free energy device, and point out that it cannot work, and you will always be right.  But what is the sport in this?  Do you like the shooting of the fish in the barrell?


I think your energies would be better spent assisting Rosemary in developing her overunity technology. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2012, 01:00:53 AM
Guys

We all need to address this.  I am trying to progress this Infinite co-efficient of performance claim.  There are those here who are doing their damnedest to prevent any discussion at all.  They are IMPOSING allegations and opinions that are detrimental to this technology and that is hardly likely to be in anyone's best interests and certainly NOT in the best interests of science.

However, it is only fair that everyone be given a 'fair chance'.  If TK and others - wish to air their views - or conduct experiments disproving our claim - then they should be allowed every opportunity to do so.  And they should also be entitled to a full and fair hearing - as are we.  But what is going on here cannot continue.

We may have come up with a solution.  I want Harti to consider this.  It is unlikely that he even reads here.  I think he may dip in occasionally - but he's not really that interested.  Therefore please, to those of you who read here and are also members and, obviously if you agree with this proposal could I impose on you to either email or PM him this post to ensure it's brought to his attention.

Let TK start his own thread.  Let him allege all he likes there about either me or about our experiment.  And then I can continue here in discussion with Poynty to determine the parameters required for our tests and why they're required.  That way one can get to some kind of finality.  And that way - whatever it is that TK manages - will be readily viewed by whoever needs to - as a reasonable counterargument to our own claim.

Failing which, I'm afraid that I needs must withdraw from this discussion.  It is now so far outside the bounds of good science or any kind of decency that I'd be crazy to continue with this exercise.  Under normal circumstances I should be given monitorship of the thread that I can keep it relevant.  And that is precisely what our detractors are trying to prevent.  Let TK have his say.  There is nothing to prevent this as there is nothing to stop him opening his own thread.  And then we can get some modicum of 'fair play' back into this discussion.  Unless any of you can propose anything else.  But that's the best we can come up with.

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2012, 02:57:27 AM
Rosemary, I'll try to clarify my concerns:

Quote
3) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source. This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output.
With 36VDC into an 11 Ohm element, the element dissipation is about 118W. Therefore, could you please clarify your quote?

Quote
4) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
I think I may understand this now. But if you want 50 Watts dissipation in a load using a fixed 36 Volt supply, why not simply use R = V2/P? Computed as such, you would require a 25.92 Ohm load resistance connected to the 36V battery supply for the control.

Quote
5) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
How are you going to adjust your apparatus to match the dissipated 50 Watts in the control load resistance? Are you going to use the same load resistor type, model and value as used for the control? It's important to use the same load resistor type, model, and value for the control and apparatus, otherwise it is not a fair and rigorous comparison between the two.

Quote
6) We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously.
Of course. And what will the course of action be if the temperature between the two drifts apart for some reason?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM
These are Rosemary Ainslie's exact words, which she has not corrected or retracted:

Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.

Is this or is this not a TRUE and CORRECT STATEMENT?

What am I "alleging" here? Just what is being "alleged" by whom?

I just want Rosemary to either CONFIRM that she stands behind her statement, or CORRECT AND RETRACT IT.


How about this, Rosemary. YOU get someone you trust and respect, who has the requisite knowledge, to explain to you what's wrong with your statement and claim. It's really clear, from your avoidance of the issue, that you don't even understand what is wrong with your claim.

25.6 million Joules in 100 minutes is an average power of over 4 KILOWATTS.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 03:20:32 AM
@ .99

Rosemary said, "This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output."

Which once again shows that she doesn't understand the basics of energy, power, time, and Ohm's law.

Heat a resistor to 50 Watts? Using a rate of current flow?  WHAT ???

Do you see what I meant when I said that you need to make sure Rosemary understands the basics before you start talking about testing anything? Now temperature is measured in Watts and power is measured in Amps per second.

And however are you going to be able to compare your present tests, at 50 or 120 Watts, with Rosemary's test that is the basis of her claim... where she achieved an average of about 4100 Watts into her 900 grams of water in 100 minutes?
25.6 million Joules.... don't stand too close!!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2012, 03:24:08 AM
I've asked Rosemary for clarification on her quote. Hopefully I've made clear my concern, as you have yours.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 03:42:08 AM
Note that, using her own exact  _data_  as cited, the performance of the circuit is unremarkable when the energy calculation is done correctly.

This is why I have such a hard time with this thread. Rosemary is claiming a monetary prize or maybe two, based on data which she has analyzed incorrectly in such a blatant manner that it is clear to everyone who actually considers the quote I keep quoting. She continues, as in your present discussion, to misuse basic terms of energy, power, and circuit performance. Her claim of "infinite COP" is based on the battery recharging, the battery recharging is based on the conclusion that the tests performed used much more energy than the battery could have supplied, and that conclusion is based on three separate math errors in her analysis. Even using her own exact experimental data, the conclusion is seen to be false when the calculation is correctly done, and in fact the batteries could likely have performed 30 such tests without going below 12 volts each.

What is wrong with this picture?

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2012, 04:03:50 AM
Rosemary also uses the negative battery power "measurement" as justification to claim COP infinity, not just the erroneous battery capacity and energy calculations in the quote you're posting.

I wouldn't hold your breath TK waiting for an admission of error on those calculations etc.  :-X

 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 04:47:24 AM
Of course she won't defend her position re the calculation, since it's indefensible. And of course she can't correct and retract her claim of 25.6 million Joules, because then... poof! Just like a blown mosfet, her overunity disappears in a puff of... 104 degree water.

You and I both know that the correct way to test this device is to determine the power _drawn from the batteries_, not delivered to the load,  by the device in the normal manner using electrical tests, and then test the _same load_ using straight DC power at the same level,  preferably from a good, filtered, adjustable DC supply, not a battery. The time-temperature profiles can be determined to see if the device heats the load any more efficiently than a DC source.
Then, take the batteries "recharged" by the device after a suitable run time heating up the load and the mosfets, and some normally charged batteries, and put them side-by-side with the same kind of load, like a 25 watt light bulb... and see which light bulb goes dark first. That will tell you if the batteries have charged up or not.

So you start with a batch of six batteries. You charge them all with a standard "smart" battery charger until the unit says they are fully charged. You write down the no-load voltage of each battery after a suitable settling time. Or you don't, it doesn't matter.
Then you RANDOMLY select three of these batteries and set them aside unused. You take the other three batteries and run the Ainslie circuit with them for a while, heating up the load and the water and of course the mosfets. Then you take the Ainslie batteries and the set-aside batteries, hook them up to light bulbs, and watch. You don't even need to do any measurements... just watch to see which bulb goes out first.

Repeat several times, conventionally charging first then randomly assigning the batteries each time.

Does this sound like a test designed by a free energy debunker, designed specifically to fail Rosemary's device?

May  I recommend HandyAVI ? It is a neat application to take time-lapse videos, motion-detection, slow-motion, frame time logging, and other neat things with a webcam. You can download a free evaluation version to try it out, but the program isn't free... it's quite reasonably priced though and the developer responds to emails about problems and questions.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2012, 04:58:28 AM
TK,

Yes agreed, that would be one of the easiest, most accurate ways to settle this. The trouble is, Rosemary is obtaining a negative battery power "measurement".

In theory, based on one of her claims that the batteries recharge, and never discharge any measurable amount, we could forego the control all together, and simply run the apparatus until either the device runs considerably beyond the rated capacity of the batteries, or the batteries die. But that brings us back to the contentious calculations error issue again.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 05:03:56 AM
So use my suggestion... no calculations or even measurements are required to test the "infinite COP battery recharging" claim.  Just start with six full batteries, run three on the Ainslie circuit for a couple of hours-- or to be fair, since the draw really isn't very high, for a couple of days, then compare it to the unused batteries with the light bulb test. Monitor the light bulbs with HandiAVI taking one frame every ten seconds or every minute until one of the bulbs is too dim to see.

Want to bet which bulb it will be?

(And how can a calculation error be contentious? Is there ANYBODY anywhere outside of Rosemary's fantasy world that will endorse the calculations as quoted, and provide justification for their endorsement? Do you remember my One Thousand Dollar challenge to Mylow? I offered him a grand, cash, on video, in public, if he would get two University engineering professors -- real ones that I could check --  in his area and of his own choosing to view and endorse his motor in public. I am on the edge of making the same offer in this case, just about that calculation and claim of 25.6 million Joules.... is there anybody who will come out in public and say that her numbers are right?)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2012, 12:58:49 PM
TK,

I don't think anyone has the courage to state publicly that the calculations in that quote are correct.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 01:28:25 PM
Of course not...  because they aren't. But not only are they not correct ( in the sense of simple math errors or typos ) they betray that continuing fundamental conceptual error about energy, power, time, and electrical parameters that Rosemary clings to in her wilful ignorance.
Lack of education is one thing... decisions made long ago, neither here nor there. But in the present moment, discussing these topics, for her to remain ignorant and to persist in these errors is inexcusable and can only be deliberate on her part. Wilful ignorance. This is why I suggested that she herself find someone with the knowledge, that she can trust, to explain the matters to her in person. Of course, since she knows it all already -- or that is her basic attitude, in spite of her periodic false humility -- she won't bother to do this.

I had to go back thirty pages to find the best page in the thread. Has there been any progress at all since then? I don't really think so. Except of course that Rosemary is now likely doing her "back-channel" communications by PMs to various individuals.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/660/ (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/660/)

I must admit that I am surprised that she hasn't gone back and edited the post # 666 for its revealing content. That's why I've preserved it in multiple quotes in my own posts here -- posts that she cannot edit to change their meaning, as she has done so often in the past.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2012, 05:33:40 PM
LOL  Guys,

Lets go back to this statement.
NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

And then to this latest
Of course not...  because they aren't. But not only are they not correct ( in the sense of simple math errors or typos ) they betray that continuing fundamental conceptual error about energy, power, time, and electrical parameters that Rosemary clings to in her wilful ignorance.
Lack of education is one thing... decisions made long ago, neither here nor there. But in the present moment, discussing these topics, for her to remain ignorant  and to persist in these errors is inexcusable and can only be deliberate on her part. Wilful ignorance. This is why I suggested that she herself find someone with the knowledge, that she can trust, to explain the matters to her in person. Of course, since she knows it all already -- or that is her basic attitude, in spite of her periodic false humility -- she won't bother to do this.

I had to go back thirty pages to find the best page in the thread. Has there been any progress at all since then? I don't really think so. Except of course that Rosemary is now likely doing her "back-channel" communications by PMs to various individuals.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/660/ (http://www.overunity.com/../../../)

I must admit that I am surprised that she hasn't gone back and edited the post # 666 for its revealing content. That's why I've preserved it in multiple quotes in my own posts here -- posts that she cannot edit to change their meaning, as she has done so often in the past.

LOL.  I've taken out all that 'glow'.  Something's very wrong in this software of Harti's. In any event.  OF COURSE I'm not going to edit anything.  There's nothing substantial that's wrong with that much referenced post of mine.  It's only a tad out.  I've allowed this posturing as I was well aware that it would likely be well referenced by TK.  And I was anxious to see those 'multiple quotes' LOL that he referenced with such reckless abandon.  There are even more amusing ones.  Ones where he tries to teach myself and all and sundry how to calculate JOULES.  And then both TK and Schubert post that TK 'ROCKS'.   :o   No so much 'rocking' as 'rocky'.   :-[   Not sure if Schubert was being sarcastic.  And I'm not sure that Poynty saw TK's multiple 'errors' in his 'multiple quotes'.  Either way.  Here's the thing.

I stand by that earlier analysis but am, indeed, a tad out.  Our batteries are possibly 60 ampere hours.  Which means that I understated their potential output by about 2 million Watts or thereby.  Otherwise all's in the right ballpark.  And I think I've now left this unanswered for about as long as is required.  Guys, everyone.  There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the analysis above.  I've even taken the trouble to get this checked out with experts.  I'll explain it in the unlikely event that TK again tries to imply all that he tries to imply.  What a joke. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary

It's actually been hilarious - and shows up TK for being an ace propagandist or a really poor scientist.  Not sure which. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2012, 06:01:13 PM
And Mags, - here where you quoted me - highlighted in red.
hey rose

"Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing."

Oh. Id like to read up on that.  ;)

Mags
I gave you a link.  Here it is again. 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)

Kindly note that NOT ONLY does the paper detail a TEST but it is a declared 'REPLICATION' of our own COP>17 test.  He didn't get to COP>17 But he never got his mind around the exploitable 'math function' on his  loaned Tektronix - that would have enabled this.  But he did his best.  And COP>4 which is claimed in that paper courtesy the incorrect analysis of Harvey Gramm - or COP>7 which is closer to the fact - is still COP>1 - which is basically all that we're trying to bring to eveyone's attention.  And right now we've got a circuit that's giving us COP Infinity.  And it seems to be born out by the fact that the amount of energy dissipated is way in excess of the potential energy available from those 5 batteries we used for this water to boil test.

I hope that's clear.  As well as the fact that there are now claimants from South Africa who have got technology that apparently falls in line with Mylows earlier claims.  Those claims that apparently TK debunked - through the simple expediency of referencing a wire that may or may not have been in the original test.  Who knows?  Hopefully they'll have the good sense to keep their claims off forum lest TK get involved again.  God knows he does damage.  It's his mission in life.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2012, 06:14:33 PM
So Guys,

Here's what TK is hoping you'll believe.  Provided we get water to boil - then it matters not how long we keep it boiling you never again reference the amount of joules other than the amount required to reach boiling point in the first instance.  So.  If you want to calculate how much energy it takes to keep a pot boiling for 6 hours or so - to cook some ox tail say - then don't worry.  The actual amount of energy in joules - is only applicable to taking that water to boil.  Would that our electrical suppliers saw sense in this.  Our utility bills would not then be quite so onerous.

Unfortunately our utility suppliers are also not that idiotic.
Kindest as ever,

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 06:29:07 PM
So Guys,

Here's what TK is hoping you'll believe.  Provided we get water to boil - then it matters not how long we keep it boiling you never again reference the amount of joules other than the amount required to reach boiling point in the first instance.  So.  If you want to calculate how much energy it takes to keep a pot boiling for 6 hours or so - to cook some ox tail say - then don't worry.  The actual amount of energy in joules - is only applicable to taking that water to boil.  Would that our electrical suppliers saw sense in this.  Our utility bills would not then be quite so onerous.

Unfortunately our utility suppliers are also not that idiotic.
Kindest as ever,

Rosemary

Nope, that's not true at all.
And it is in fact typical of Rosemary's argumentation. She is claiming something that "I'm hoping for you to believe" when that simply isn't true at all. In other words.... it's another lie from Rosemary.
You should be grateful that the electric utilities DON"T calculate your energy usage the way Rosemary does... you'd be in for a big "shock" when you got your next bill.


I am referring, continually and ONLY for the purpose of the present argument, to the post you made. It's right there in your own quote of my quote.
Quote
"There's nothing substantial that's wrong with that much referenced post of mine.  It's only a tad out."

Rosemary.... as I have shown several times, it's out by a factor of about 75. That is, your claimed energy of 25.6 MILLION Joules is SEVENTYFIVE TIMES larger than the actual correct figures arrived at by correct calculations from your own basic input data: 900 grams of water raised from 16 degrees to 104 degrees (hah!) in 100 minutes. Your claim is equivalent to applying over  FOUR KILOWATTS, that is, over FIVE HORSEPOWER, continually, for 100 minutes, to your liter of water. That is absurd, no matter where the water-- or power-- came from. Your oxtail soup would be long boiled completely away.

And a JOULE is NOT a WATT PER SECOND.

Do you see? She DOES NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND where and what her errors are in the calculation.

Quote
Guys, everyone.  There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the analysis above.  I've even taken the trouble to get this checked out with experts.  I'll explain it in the unlikely event that TK again tries to imply all that he tries to imply.

OK... please please pretty please EXPLAIN IT. Checked with experts? You really really are a piece of work. Experts in what? Cosmetics?

Let's start here: How many Joules does it take to raise 900 grams of water from 16 degrees C to 104 degrees C?
Or, if that's too much for you, how many Joules does it take to raise ONE gram of water from 16 degrees to 17 degrees? (Hint: the answer is in your quote, and it's the only thing you got right).
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2012, 06:29:36 PM
And TK,  Can I impose on you now to please open your own thread.  Then you can use whatever argument you want - and it won't then interrupt this. 

You'll be able to propagandise to your heart's content.  I promise you I won't post there. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 06:47:50 PM
You are still claiming a lie, Rosemary. Until this is dealt with... you will have to deal with me on this thread. Or not... that's your continuing choice. But I'll keep pointing out your calculation errors and your false claim of 25.6 MILLION JOULES, equivalent to over 4100 Watts continuous power, until you correct and retract it --- or PROVE ME WRONG with solid evidence. I am not afraid of being proven wrong. Let's see you do it.

What's wrong with the test that I proposed? Take six batteries, charge them fully with a battery charger, randomly select three and set them aside. Make your oxtail soup for a couple of days or hours or whatever using the other three. Then take both sets, hook them up to identical ordinary light bulb loads, and watch, using a time-lapse webcam, to see which set of batteries runs out first. Repeat a few times, charging all with a charger and then randomly selecting the batteries each time, just to be sure. This could be done within two weeks, easily.

Is that simple enough for you? Why can't your circuit be tested fairly that way?

Another brief calculation reveals that, for your claim to be true, since I = P / V, your mosfets would have to be carrying a CONTINUOUS current of (4100 Watts/(5 batteries x 12 v per battery)) == over 68 Amps. Pretty remarkable, since that's way over the rating of the miracle magic IRFPG50 , I think. I'll have to check the data sheet....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 18, 2012, 06:49:58 PM
So Guys,

Here's what TK is hoping you'll believe.  Provided we get water to boil - then it matters not how long we keep it boiling you never again reference the amount of joules other than the amount required to reach boiling point in the first instance.  So.  If you want to calculate how much energy it takes to keep a pot boiling for 6 hours or so - to cook some ox tail say - then don't worry.  The actual amount of energy in joules - is only applicable to taking that water to boil.  Would that our electrical suppliers saw sense in this.  Our utility bills would not then be quite so onerous.

Unfortunately our utility suppliers are also not that idiotic.
Kindest as ever,

Rosemary


Now you know I am a supporter, but you cannot use the formulas you have posited.  You made a simple transposition.  A watt is one joule per second, but a joule is not one watt per second.


When you talk about keeping water at a certain temperature, you cannot use the function for raising the temperature of water.  Keeping water at a certain temperature is a calculation that depends on the joules of energy going out of the container of water that you have.  This in turn will depend on ambient temperatures and also the insulation of the container.


As far as boiling, that is actually a different calculation too.  I believe it takes about 2260 joules to vaporize one gram of water (without changing temperature).


But anyway, I think you are very close, Rosemary.  Just fix these simple typos and I think you will be done!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 06:57:45 PM
@eaten:
It's not a simple transposition or a typo. Note that she tries to add the same energy twice, as well as multiplying the energy times the TIME. This is not a transposition or a typo, it's a fundamental conceptual error.

When you answered my example question, you did not make this error. Why are you accepting it from Rosemary now?

In the data she gave, she did not talk about "keeping" the water at a certain temperature. Any replacement of lost heat from her probably not-well-insulated container would indeed add to the energy required. Let's say it doubles it. Fine. Now let's say that she boiled away all of the 900 grams of water into steam in the last 10 minutes of the test. So that's about 330000 Joules to raise the temperature, another 330000 Joules to compensate for heat losses, and 900 x 2260 Joules for the phase change. 660000 + (900 x 2260) == a bit over 2.6 million Joules. Is this coincidentally about one tenth of her 25.6 MILLION joules claim? Note that she didn't claim to have boiled off all the water.
If I had done so, I would certainly have pointed it out. But that's just me.

Got any more of them coffin nails? That was a good one. Thanks for bringing it up.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 07:11:49 PM
And TK,  Can I impose on you now to please open your own thread.  Then you can use whatever argument you want - and it won't then interrupt this. 

You'll be able to propagandise to your heart's content.  I promise you I won't post there. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

I note, once again, the attempt to silence your critics rather than deal honestly and openly with their criticism. What's the matter, isn't Stefan responding to your PM requests to have me blocked or banned?

http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irfpg50.pdf (http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irfpg50.pdf)

Note the maximum continous drain current. Compare to the current necessary to provide 4100 Watts at 60 volts. Now count your mosfets. DO THE MATH. If you have six mosfets in parallel, carrying 68 Amps, and each mosfet is rated at maximum 6.1 amps _when cold_, what do you suppose is gonna happen? What's going to happen, very rapidly, when the _first_ one fails? I'll tell you... by the time the sixth one fails it will be like a shotgun going off on your table top.
Is it going to matter very much where the current is coming from or whether it's pulsed rapidly or not? I don't think so.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2012, 07:27:33 PM
eatenbyagrue - I'll be back here later tonight.  Hopefully you'll still be there.  Then I'll explain this.  If I'm wrong you'll no doubt advise me. But I've taken expert advice.  I had to.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 18, 2012, 07:44:02 PM
Rosemary,

If your not a coward ..... and still say your device has a COP>INFINITY ....

I WANT TO BROADCAST IT "LIVE" ON MY WEB SITE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE !!!

UNLESS YOUR A COWARD !!!


http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org


Fuzzy
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 18, 2012, 08:24:30 PM
Rosemary Ainslie is applying for.... nay, DEMANDING.... a monetary prize, two actually, for overunity performance. If these prizes are awarded, it will be the first time in history that such a thing has happened. A most extraordinary event, history-making and with the potential to alter the course of humanity.

This being the case...

Am I _really_ the only person who believes that any inconsistency in the claims made should be carefully examined, corrected if in error, justified if they are not, and retracted if they are wrong?

There is a glaring inconsistency in Rosemary Ainslie's claim. Just try sitting in a room for an hour and a half with a device dissipating 4100 watts continuously and you will know what I mean. The most powerful portable electric room heaters available in the USA are limited to 1500 Watts.

25.6 million Joules in 100 minutes is over 4100 continuous Watts.... since a Watt is a Joule Per Second. This is NOT the same as her statement, made over and over, that a Joule is a Watt PER Second.

Quoting Rosemary again, for eatenbyagrue's benefit, who doubts that she has this conceptual error:

Quote
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

QED.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 18, 2012, 10:28:58 PM

Quoting Rosemary again, for eatenbyagrue's benefit, who doubts that she has this conceptual error:

QED.

I am sure Rosemary just made an innocent mistake.  She is a well educated scientist, and I do not think any educated person would think that a joule is 1 watt per second.  She just transposed some things.  I have full faith in her.

Rosemary, I think if you raise the temperature of water from 16 to 104 degrees (I assume it was salt water), that is an 88 degree change.  So 88 degrees times 900g times 4.184 joules is 331,373 joules.  So that is the raw number.

To correctly calculate what your circuit put out we have to compensate for energy lost during this process to ambient air.  Rosemary, I think if you just stick a thermometer into the pot of water when it is at 104 degrees, turn off the heat, and then observe how fast the pot cools, this could help us calculate this part and we could add it to the equation.  If, for example, it luckily takes exactly 100 minutes to get back down to 16 degrees, we would just double the 331,373 joules and add it to your total, so your circuit would produce a whopping 662,746 joules, which I think is alot!

But that's not all.  We would also need to add 2160 joules per gram of water that has boiled off.  So you could weigh your pot before and after the experiment, and then we would know this.  So let's say 100g of water boiled off.  This would be another whole 216,000 joules your circuit produced, which is great.


For average power, the above assumptions would give us 878746 joules / 6000 seconds = 146.5 watts of power.

So I think you are on the right track, let's just get these loose ends buttoned up and I think you will have your proof finished.  You are almost there except for those small slips.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 12:14:43 AM
Ya know, TK, you press Rose to give you the truth and straight answers. You demand them from her..

Well what about all the unanswered questions on the Whipmag that you, Tinsekoala aka Alsetalokin, or commonly Al, presented on youtube. You wont answer those questions. So guess what?

You deserve nothing. You really think who you are dont ya. Above all. kinda like Obama a bit.

Ill bet that there was more  money and time invested by others in trying to build what you started, than what has been spent on Roses project. I bet ya.  But you wouldnt be responsible to stop them. You probably enjoyed it all, watching your seed of destruction grow.

Till you spill the whip, you should get nuthin. How do ya like them apples? Ya ole whippersnapper.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 12:42:24 AM
Here is the whip in question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7CO8No-CE

One of many copies that were made. The original has been taken down, by Alsetalokin

WAS IT A FAKE!!!!!!!    freak

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 01:08:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=whipmag&oq=whipmag&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=764l1756l0l2063l5l4l0l0l0l0l441l797l0.1.1.0.1l3l0

Thereare 125 vids left on YT that contain the word Whipmag  Im in there.

YT is cleaning house lately, of old no longer used accts.  There used to be many many  more.

But there are many examples of people trying to get the effect that Alsetalokin/Tinselkoala had shown in that vid in that search above.

 Mad Prof made personally engraved setups for several people at Fizzx.org to hopefully speed up the proccess of getting the thing to work. Money money money time time time wasted wasted wasted.  Because of you TK   

So why should anyone believe what you say or show anymore?  If that circuit you wanted me to go back and look at was so well done and no trickery, why should I believe you? HUH Whipper?  :o

I remember one answer he gave about it once, you said it was buried in the ground under snow. Couldnt dig it out till summer.  Ahh. I see. ;)    Great answer. Bravo.


Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 01:28:55 AM
Here is what TK had in his vid. On the left is what Roses circuit shows as the inductor, and the leds in line with the inductor.

In TK's table top setup, the 2 circuits on the right are his replication of the use for the inductor and the leds.  A transformer with one led across the primary and one across the secondary.  I show 2 of his circuits, with the sec diode in the opposite direction, as I cannot tell from the vid.
Can anyone here say the either of that 2 circuits on the right are representative of Roses circuit on the left? Anyone?  ;D

Yet TK stands by it.  In your face.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 19, 2012, 01:32:16 AM
Magluvin,

I am going to step in and defend TK.  He made a mistake but he redeemed himself.  He busted Mylow.  Nobody could figure it out and he did.  He deserves a lot of credit for that and he deserves forgiveness.  So that whole chapter is closed.  He is also a good decent guy with good values and he tries to help people.

Nonetheless, it was still an interesting social experiment.  It illustrates how many unscrupulous people can prey on gullible free energy believers and how much the believers are willing to undergo "suspension of belief" (in common sense) and go crazy replicating and fantasizing.

The lesson was there to be learned, but the reality is that nothing has changed.

For me personally, I didn't believe in the Whipmag for one second.  Same thing for Steorn, and for Mylow and for Romero, and also for your attempted replication of a faked one magnet no bearing pulse motor.

So it's time to move on with respect to your posting.  It's water under the bridge and TK is a good guy and he redeemed himself.  End of story.

You yourself should stop the bad boy character, it's too much.  Calling TK a "freak," saying "Dumped took a dump on me," and so on.  You are also in a strange position relative to your last posting.  You are giving TK a hard time for something that's now ancient history, yet at the same time you are "in bed" with Romero on your other thread.

TK's replication of Rosemary's circuit, although not an exact replication, showed how easily MOSFETs can go into spontaneous oscillation.  Think of a microphone and a public address system.  It's just feedback, in one case you hear the high-pitched whine from the speakers, and in the other case you see the high-frequency oscillation on your scope.  In both cases you have a sensitive input and an amplified output.

One way or another Rosemary is going to discover for herself or be shown that her circuit actually consumes current and drains the batteries and is 100% conventional and there is no over unity.  Whenever Rosemary senses that a legitimate test will uncover the truth she dismisses it as being unacceptable.  Whenever Rosemary is cornered and caught in a technical mistake she uses her "LOL" strategy to try to deflect the issue.

It's only a matter of time before this whole charade collapses.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 01:49:50 AM
@Mags: Be careful, you don't have all your facts straight. Can you give a reference to where this "alsetalokin" fellow EVER claimed that his device was overunity in any way? And by your own admission, "al" took that video down after it had only been up less than half an hour... so all other copies are unauthorized rip-offs and may.. or may not... have been altered.
Second, I responded to your strawman black diagrams in the other thread. The brown cylinder you can see in the video, sticking up next to the transformer you object to so much is an inductor, in series with the LED load. When I remove the transformer but leave the parallel LED in place, the circuit becomes just as you have shown on the left, but with one LED. Then when I flip the LED.... well, your strawman goes up in flames.
Please watch the early Ainslie videos on my YT channel.
And the 2n7000 does have an internal body diode, it just isn't commonly shown on its diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2N7000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2N7000)

And please provide evidence of "cleaning up old accounts" or however you put it. I think you are getting a little paranoid.

@eatenbyagrue: OK, you are on the right track. Now compare your figure with Rosemary's 25.6 Million Joules and the battery's 10 million Joules capacity. Did she exceed the battery's capacity in that one test as she claimed, or not?
Rosemary has never mentioned water loss, not all of it like I calculated or one ninth of it like you did. Nor did she mention salt water. She did mention making tea. With salt water? Well, tastes do differ.
So you calculated 879,000 Joules to raise the temp and boil off 100 grams of water, leaving 800 behind (and a crust of salt). She calculated 25.6 million Joules and didn't mention any lowering of the vessel's level, just "to boiling". To me, that means that she stopped the test when the water boiled... but anyway, we know that at the end of the first 90 minutes the water WASN'T boiling, so she had to raise the temp a further 22 degrees AND boil off 100 grams in the next ten minutes, under your assumption. OK, fine.
Now, the battery pack contained how much? 10.3 million Joules. And that figure divided by your figure is... almost 12. So the battery could have done 12 tests under your assumptions, boiling water like mad, before running down. And the discharge curve of those silver-calcium batteries is nice... have you seen it? They don't go below 12 volts until down to about 20 percent of their full charge. So take 4/5 of 12 and get about 9 or 10 or so... nine tests as you assume, boiling water like crazy at 150 Watts, before the batteries go below 12 volts.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 01:56:24 AM
"I remember one answer he gave about it once, you said it was buried in the ground under snow. Couldnt dig it out till summer.  Ahh. I see. (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../Smileys/default/wink.gif)    Great answer. Bravo. "

Link, please. "Screenshot or it didn't happen".

And didn't this "alsetalokin" you speak of make most of his posts from a basement apartment in Ontario, Canada, during the winter? Ironically... that could be interpreted as "buried under snow".... couldn't it?


I am lolling all over the place, from my 85 degree F room here in San Antonio, Texas.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 01:57:07 AM
Yep yea  umm hmm yea, um , well, alrighty then.   ;)

Ive got this motor to test. Carry on.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 02:11:04 AM
In fact, Mags ... it sort of looks like Rosemary is doing just what you accuse this "alsetalokin" fellow of doing.  He did it differently though... he showed "evidence" but made no claims.... while Rosemary makes claims but shows no evidence. In the first case, since no claims were made,  no awards were claimed and anybody who tried to _prove him right_ by reproducing the device's behavior using _their own theories_ failed. Those who tried to _prove him wrong_ by reproducing the evidence using normal methods... had more success.
In the second case, since a monetary award is being claimed, without strong unequivocal evidence of the claims being made, it's important to investigate the CLAIM ITSELF, since that's all you really have before you. And the claim is inconsistent with reality, no matter where the supposed energy is coming from.

Just as the "evidence" as presented in the video you so kindly have linked... is inconsistent with reality, as anyone with a knowledge of basic physics could tell you.

Remember.... the time you waste is your own. There's a whole wide world of things that _could possibly work_, but overunity PM motors and inductive spike batterychargers and gravity motors and buoyancy drives aren't among them.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 02:27:31 AM
Na TK  dont switch this on Rose.

Anybody that has any form of inteligence, would assume that the Whip you you presented in that video was doing exactly as you presented it.  Do you know how many times I reviewed that vid? The slow motion, etc.  But never ever did you once reveal how it was done. THATS WHY SOO MANY PEOPLE TRIED TO REPLICATE IT.

And how long was your video up before you took it down? I have an original copy.
And why not a quick vid to stop the madness? But you wrestle with Rose of her claim, just so nobody out there might believe her, and that they dont waste their money on her treachery. But those what continued on with the whip? Ya coulda put a fraction of the effort you put in here to end that debacle.  Now that is freaky.   ;)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 02:33:27 AM
"And how long was your video up before you took it down? I have an original copy."
Are you quite sure? As far as I can tell, the original video was only up on YT for about 27 minutes, and it was only originally presented to refute some offbeat claim that Omnibus made, about the impossibility of AGW or something. And if you did the work, you know that AGW did indeed work just as shown. CLaNZeR even confirmed that the magnokinetic Judson dampers worked exactly as described, to slow and stabilize the rotating stators. He even published rundown graphs comparing with and without, and even the specific alloy turned out to be both important... and just as "alsetalokin" said.
So I don't know what that has to do with Rosemary's claim, though.  Except perhaps it illustrates some right and some wrong things about the way people think.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 02:41:07 AM
"Na TK  dont switch this on Rose."

Wait a minute.... aren't YOU trying to "switch this" on ME? Who started discussion about the WhipMag?

You are implying that my present work is flawed, not because of anything in the present work itself, except for the strawman I have gutted, but rather by citing some other work, years ago, that you didn't quite understand, and that you attribute to me. Isn't that a classic argumentum ad hominem, abusive?

At least when I call Rosemary an uneducated arrogant liar, I can provide evidence for all of it in her own words.

"DO THE MATH", for example, for arrogance. "25.6 Million Joules" for the lie. "A Joule is a Watt Per Second" for uneducated.

I am lolling even more now.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 02:49:24 AM
Sure, I know exactly what your talking about...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SV0mtuko4M

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea7E8Au0AkE

But ya could have stopped it all by just posting a vid of what made that rotor accelerate.
Motor, battery, fishingline on the pulley on top. But no. You claimed that it only worked with certain magnets out of the bunch. You gave tips on bearings, etc.
You let it continue.

And Just saying that you never made a claim of Ou and such, just pushed people harder because one rumor going around was that you were silenced.

Just a 1 min vid would have been all it would have took.

So yea. I know quite a bit.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 03:03:22 AM
Lol  that vid was up for only 27 min.   Exactly why was that T?  Waaas there an issue? Hmmm?

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 03:17:07 AM

***** BUMP *****  THREAD GOING OFF TOPIC FLAME BREAK
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Rosemary,

If your not a coward ..... and still say your device has a COP>INFINITY ....

I WANT TO BROADCAST IT "LIVE" ON MY WEB SITE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE !!!

UNLESS YOUR A COWARD !!!


http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org)


Fuzzy
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 04:08:39 AM
My dear eatenbyagrue

You really are a gentleman and a scholar.  Which, I might tell you, are precisely those attributes that I most admire in a man.  Rare on these forums, occupied as they are with rampant opportunists.  And I see how you're trying to protect me from making any mistakes.  But that's the price of open source - eatenbyagrue.  If one is wrong then one is wrong in public.   And, indeed, you present a good argument - so it seems that I most probably am wrong.  And I'm well aware that most of our members are satisfied on this.  But I personally and unfortunately am not satisfied and never have been.  And while you're trying to promote me as a good scientist - I'm really only a reasonably good amateur theorist.  So it is more than likely that I will 'err' - as Poynty says.  :o ;D Fortunately I have no axe to grind on this issue.  That analysis is my own assessment of a result that has no part of our official claim.  And it's simply based on my own ball park evaluation of battery performance against the energy dissipated at the load resistor.  I would have absolutely no hesitation in owning up if I am wrong.  I have nothing to lose - provided only that science wins.  I trust my history has been proof of this.   

Now.  Here's how I've been given to understand this.  To begin with Wiki defines a watt as 1 joule per second.  And correspondingly it defines 1 joule as 1 watt per second.  In other words the 'time' factor is integrated into that equation.  Now.  In the past I have been to great pains to ensure that we do not use the transfer of heat into water - precisely to obviate this argument - as your own assessment here is also a widely held opinion.  Far be it from me to presume to correct anything at all.  I'm only here presenting the counter argument.  Golly.  I see I last posted at 8'30'ish last night. Anyway - here's the counter argument.  I'm going to bullet schedule the points in the hopes of keeping this readable.  And I'll start another post in the interest of keeping each post relatively brief and relatively readable.  Bear with me.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 04:09:33 AM
. Let's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
 . Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms.  The source voltage is 220 volts.  The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
 . Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
 . Now I assure you.  While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
 . In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
 . every second
 . for every minute
 . of each of those six hours
 . giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.
 . And not only that.  They can also PROVE that the current continued to flow during that entire cooking period.  Their bill is based on evidence.
 . Then.  We turn off that current flow. 
 . From that point onwards AND ONLY AT THAT POINT, our utility supplier closes off that little cooking account.  The balance of that cooking is for free.
 . The pot will continue to boil - for a while - while the element cools - the water in the pot cools and finally that ox tail stops cooking.
 . That little extra was for free.  Because from the point that the stove was turned off there was no more energy applied to that cooking procedure.
 
 Now we go to our own experiment.
 . Our temperature probe was attached to the surface of the element resistor.
 . We took the element resistor to a measured temperature of plus/minus 260 degrees.  (from memory so I may be out by a small factor)
 . It was continuing to rise and it was rather critical to prevent this becoming a catastrophic runaway number that could not be contained.
 . Therefore an insulated container was then filled with approximately 1 liter of water.
 . The element resistor was then inserted directly into that cold water.
 . There was much splashing and a great noise as that hot iron hit the cold water
 . Within not more than 5 minutes that water settled to an even temperature - approximately 66 degrees centigrade above ambient.
 . Then it stayed at that temperature for a further 85 minutes or thereby.
 . From the point that it was barely 40 degrees centigrade above ambient the water was steaming.
 . When we measured 106 degrees centigrade from the probe attached to that element resistor we then stopped that experiment.
 . We disconnected the batteries.
 . We did no further measurements.
 
 . I put it to you that for the duration of that test period being a total of approximately 105 minutes - energy was applied to that water
 . in the same way as energy was applied to the stove that heated the ox tail.
 . We did no further measurements after the disconnection of the battery supply.
 . This experiment is repeatable.
 . And the actual temperature over the element resistor required an applied energy or it would not have sustained a temperature
 . That evidently exceeded 260 degrees centigrade or thereby at the conclusion of that test period.
 
 Which is what I based that analysis on and which argument has been endorsed.  But I am yet open to correction.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 04:47:54 AM
LOL Guys,

Some more bullet points. 

. Glen Lettenmaier (previously moderated) is enlisted by Harti for damage control to my own claims.  He's given carte blanche permission to do his damndest. 8)
. Then Glen is cautioned to try and keep his posts topical.  ::)
. Which caution is then publicly referenced as being 'removed' - which is all somewhat confusing. 8)
. Then TK takes over the flaming as his arguments are better presented - his propagandising more effective. They work in concert.  :o
. Then Mags steps in to expose TK for the scoundrel that he is  ;D
. Then MileHigh (previously banned) is enlisted for damage control against TK  8) :o 8)
. Fortunately we can rest on MileHigh's advices.  And he assures us that TK is a 'good guy'. ::) :o 8)
. Thankfully he told us this.  Else we'd be inclined to think he was not. Whatever next?   :o

It seems that our forum guidelines are just that.  Guidelines.  And it seems that Harti is accessing every troll in the world to come and work this thread.  LOL.  I can't for the life of me work out why.  What will be very interesting is to see which of us are finally banned.  I'd put my money on it that it won't be TK, MileHigh or Glen.  LOL.  Likely it will be Magsy or me - OR BOTH.  Me for the breach of implicit guidelines where a poster MAY NOT DEFEND HIS/HER GOOD NAME.  Mags for breach of guidelines where a poster may not expose the traducer.  It's all giving me a headache.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose,

Magsy - I was in awe of your integrity.  I'm now in AWE of your courage.  It's quite simply amazing. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 19, 2012, 04:53:25 AM
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
22 Amps * 220 Volts =  4840 Watts

Quote
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.
4840 * 60 * 60 * 6 = 104.544 MJ (mega-Joules)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 04:58:04 AM
LOL

Thank you Poynty Point.  Not only is this on topic but it's clearly a much needed correction.  I'm rolling with laughter.  I think I should ALWAYS defer my math posting for daylight.  Then I'd might just manage simple arithmetic with marginally better competence.  At least the odds would then be more in my favour.

Poynty I really do like you.  Enormously.  Between you and Mags - I actually manage the occasional laugh.

With the very best of my my very best regards,
Rosie Pose
22 Amps * 220 Volts =  4840 Watts
4840 * 60 * 60 * 6 = 104.544 MJ (mega-Joules)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 19, 2012, 05:02:37 AM
To begin with Wiki defines a watt as 1 joule per second.
See "Watt_Def.png" attachment.

Quote
And correspondingly it defines 1 joule as 1 watt per second.
See "Joule_Def.png" attachment.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:05:36 AM
@eatenbyagrue: NOW do you see?

Quote
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
 . every second
 . for every minute
 . of each of those six hours
 . giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.
 . And not only that.  They can also PROVE that the current continued to flow during that entire cooking period.  Their bill is based on evidence.

Wouldn't you like to see Rosemary's electric bill, where she's charged for 47 MEGAWATTS during a six hour period? 47 megaWatts x 6 hours is a staggering 282 MEGAWATT HOURS.... and the price of electricity here is something like 13 cents per kiloWatt-hour, so Rosie's bill would be  0.13 x 282 x 1000 or over 36 thousand dollars.

Of course, the rates in South Africa may be substantially lower. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 05:05:49 AM
Poynty

You left this out.  Also per Wiki.

where N is the newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29), m is the metre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre), kg is the kilogram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram), s is the second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second), Pa is the pascal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_%28unit%29), and W is the watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt). One joule can also be defined as: The work required to move an electric charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge) of one coulomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb) through an electrical potential difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage) of one volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt), or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt.
The work required to produce one watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt) of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29) for one second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second), or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour)). This relationship can be used to define the watt.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)

Therefore 'time' is implicit.

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 05:09:07 AM
Lol Rose  Love the story line with pictures.   8) :o 8)         ;) :o 8)

The courage is not too hard to come by. I have some knowledge of things. And most importantly, they have nothing on me.  ;)   Im clean, so I can spot dirty.  lol

So I dont have to spend time defending myself.

I need to focus on my project. Ill be around Rose. I think you can handle it from here. Just a lil dusting.  :-* 8) 8) 8) 8)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 05:10:41 AM
Rosemary,

You have much, much bigger problems ...

We established "CUT OFF" dates for your NERD RAT published device schematics based on established 12 MARCH 2011 "VIDEO" evidence .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315729/#msg315729      Reply #1117 on: March 17, 2012, 12:45:43 AM



FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2011_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

12_MARCH_2011_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosemary your schematic in your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publication show .....

ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf     ( Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus )

ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf    ( Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure )

Both PDF schematics shown and referenced for PEER REVIEW is ....

12_MARCH_2011_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

Therefore SCOPE SHOTS and DATA DUMPS for .....

ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf 

Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #4    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #5    dated 02/09/11    500us    49.5v    (4 battery)
Fig #8    dated 02/16/11    500us    74.1v    (6 battery)

ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf

Fig #2    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #8    dated 03/02/11    2us    62.9v    (5 battery)

AND THIS IS THE CORRECT "NERD RAT COP>INFINITY" DEVICE SCHEMATIC .....

FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2011_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )


Your papers correct and completed papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and publication show the schematic is "incorrect" your scope shots and data dumps are wrong and the documents ......

ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf     ( Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus )
ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf    ( Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure )

These PDF's and content should be withdrawn anywhere and everywhere they are, followed by a retraction by YOU of the mistakes made in your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW .


Fuzzy
 8)

*meow*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:18:44 AM
I've just done some early testing on that first circuit Fuzzy posted. I'm using a single IRFPG50 mosfet (that's all my supplier had in stock until next week) and a light bulb with 50 ohms cold resistance as a load, both with and without inductors in series. So far, the circuit switches just fine, but I've not been able to get it to oscillate. Even using IRF 530 and 2n7000 mosfets it does not oscillate. I am using a regulated power supply for the source voltage, though. I don't have a lot of batteries or inductors here right now... but that will change.

Note how Rosemary's description of the experimental test in question has changed. Even the numbers have changed.

Everything changes, and yet everything remains the same. Rosemary is the one making outrageous and ignorant claims.... and I am the one who is the villain.

I continue to ROFL out loud.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 05:20:15 AM
Guys, in case you missed this.

The reason that Glen pasted this post - YET AGAIN - is because he's anxious to take the thread away from some rather telling posts.  It's his mandate.  He may post what he likes provided only that he forces the focus away from anything that's significant.  Hopefully you'll have the good sense to apply that scroll function on your computers.  Harti is rather depending on these kind of distractions.  Else why would he allow Glen to post?  It's not as if he ever has anything to say.  And he's trying very hard to ignore the fact that he claims a full on replication of an earlier test but - confusingly - tries to deny this.  What is doubly confusing is that he thinks it would take courage to access some live broadcast number that he's proposing.  He seems to think that I'd ever allow our work to be associated with his name - or lack of it.  Take your pick.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:22:26 AM
  You left this out.  Also per Wiki.

where N is the newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29), m is the metre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre), kg is the kilogram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram), s is the second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second), Pa is the pascal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_%28unit%29), and W is the watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt). One joule can also be defined as: The work required to move an electric charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge) of one coulomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb) through an electrical potential difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage) of one volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt), or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt.
The work required to produce one watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt) of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29) for one second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second), or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour)). This relationship can be used to define the watt.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)

Therefore 'time' is implicit.

Rosie

You are talking about things you don't understand. Go ahead, continue. It's really laughable. Show this thread to your "academics". They'll get a kick out of it, I'm sure, especially that part about your electric bill, and your 47.5 megaWatts.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 05:23:55 AM
I've just done some early testing on that first circuit Fuzzy posted. I'm using a single IRFPG50 mosfet (that's all my supplier had in stock until next week) and a light bulb with 50 ohms cold resistance as a load, both with and without inductors in series. So far, the circuit switches just fine, but I've not been able to get it to oscillate. Even using IRF 530 and 2n7000 mosfets it does not oscillate. I am using a regulated power supply for the source voltage, though. I don't have a lot of batteries or inductors here right now... but that will change.

Note how Rosemary's description of the experimental test in question has changed. Even the numbers have changed.

Everything changes, and yet everything remains the same. Rosemary is the one making outrageous and ignorant claims.... and I am the one who is the villain.

I continue to ROFL out loud.

My dear Tinsel Koala,
We all know you for being the champion of the blindingly ignorant and we all appreciate how urgently the public must be prevented from seeing any conclusive battery draw down test that I may be trying to propose.  We therefore concede that if this is the measure of the man - then villain does not cut it as a description.  So.  In a rather roundabout way ... you're right.

Rosie Posie
Pudding and Pie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 05:28:23 AM


I continue to ROFL out loud.

Could you roll on the floor again? I didnt hear it the first time.   ;D

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:29:15 AM
Lol Rose  Love the story line with pictures.   8) :o 8)         ;) :o 8)

The courage is not too hard to come by. I have some knowledge of things. And most importantly, they have nothing on me.  ;)   Im clean, so I can spot dirty.  lol

So I dont have to spend time defending myself.

I need to focus on my project. Ill be around Rose. I think you can handle it from here. Just a lil dusting.  :-* 8) 8) 8) 8)

Mags

So you've seen her recent posts with her explanation and her new example calculation. And presumably you endorse them as correct, since you haven't commented negatively about them.

I am ashamed for you. Go and work on your motor, but don't forget.... the BATTERY is the one part of all free energy devices that seems to be absolutely required. Darn it... none of them will run without a battery !!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:33:23 AM
My dear Tinsel Koala,
We all know you for being the champion of the blindingly ignorant and we all appreciate how urgently the public must be prevented from seeing any conclusive battery draw down test that I may be trying to propose.  We therefore concede that if this is the measure of the man - then villain does not cut it as a description.  So.  In a rather roundabout way ... you're right.

Rosie Posie
Pudding and Pie

There you go again, liar. You know that I have proposed, over and over, a simple and easy and unequivocal drawdown test that even YOU could perform adequately within two weeks. You haven't said what you find objectionable about my easy and unequivocal test. But to claim that I am against testing of any kind is just another one of your lies. Anybody reading here can see that I have repeatedly encouraged people to BUILD AND TEST the circuit for themselves. Even you, Rosemary, although from your past performance I doubt if you could handle the measurements and computations. That is why I suggested a test that requires NO measurements and NO computations, but would  be a fair test of your battery charging claim nevertheless.

So stop complaining that I am trying to stop or delay testing. The truth is EXACTLY OPPOSITE from what you claim... as usual.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:34:19 AM
Could you roll on the floor again? I didnt hear it the first time.   ;D

Mags

25.6 MegaJoules.
47.5 MegaWatts in 6 hours, on her electric bill.

Can you hear it now?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 05:37:32 AM
So you've seen her recent posts with her explanation and her new example calculation. And presumably you endorse them as correct, since you haven't commented negatively about them.

I am ashamed for you. Go and work on your motor, but don't forget.... the BATTERY is the one part of all free energy devices that seems to be absolutely required. Darn it... none of them will run without a battery !!

I would be most reluctant to call you a liar - so will only say that this statement of yours is NOT TRUE.  Our water to boil test measured absolutely NO energy coming from the battery supply.  It's explained in that second paper that you're anxious never to reference.  Which lack of reference is also a critical component to your argument.  LOL.  Better leave it buried behind yours and Glen Lettenmaier's pages and pages of traducement.

Take care of yourself TK.  The tide is turning.  And it may yet be that you'll not be able to retire to that little coastal village in Mexico.  God forbid.

And as ever,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 05:37:44 AM
So you've seen her recent posts with her explanation and her new example calculation. And presumably you endorse them as correct, since you haven't commented negatively about them.

I am ashamed for you. Go and work on your motor, but don't forget.... the BATTERY is the one part of all free energy devices that seems to be absolutely required. Darn it... none of them will run without a battery !!

Ill present this advice to congress, and will implement those ideas when they are finished deliberating.    ;)    Should be soon.  ;)   Wudaya think?

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 05:44:48 AM
Harti,

I see that you're there.  May I please impose on you to halt the traducements on this thread.  We are anxious to thrash out the conditions required for a final proof of claim - related to battery draw downs.  And every time we attempt a discussion of this TK and Glen and, latterly even MileHigh - dominate the discussion - now in defense of TK.

May I ask you to consider allowing TK and his friends to work their counter arguments on an alternate thread?  That way Poynty and I and Mags can implement the conditions to that test that Mags proposed we run.  Else this will forever be prevented. And that's not in the interests of over unity research.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:44:53 AM
Lol  that vid was up for only 27 min.   Exactly why was that T?  Waaas there an issue? Hmmm?

Mags
As I already told you, the video was made to illustrate a particular point to a particular person, Omnibus, and as soon as the Omnibus had seen it, it was taken down by the maker. It was something in the nature of a private communication, but Omnibus took it and ran with it, like a big bass swallowing a plastic frog. He is the one who copied it first or immediately told his contacts about it, he is the one who originally promoted it as an overunity device. If you have a beef with someone, you should talk to him, because if he hadn't let it out, you probably would never have heard of it.  But since Omnibus let it out to the public..... well, you really can't close Pandora's Box again, can you.

How's that for "issues"?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 05:47:15 AM
25.6 MegaJoules.
47.5 MegaWatts in 6 hours, on her electric bill.

Can you hear it now?
No. That wasnt what I asked for.  It was the rolling on the floor that I wanted to hear silly.
Twisting things again. 

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:49:25 AM
I would be most reluctant to call you a liar - so will only say that this statement of yours is NOT TRUE.  Our water to boil test measured absolutely NO energy coming from the battery supply.  It's explained in that second paper that you're anxious never to reference.  Which lack of reference is also a critical component to your argument.  LOL.  Better leave it buried behind yours and Glen Lettenmaier's pages and pages of traducement.

Take care of yourself TK.  The tide is turning.  And it may yet be that you'll not be able to retire to that little coastal village in Mexico.  God forbid.

And as ever,
Rosie Posie

Well then. Which part isn't true?

Will your circuit run WITHOUT A BATTERY and heat up water? No? So a battery IS required for your circuit, isn't it, even though you didn't MEASURE any draw from it....

I wonder what the explanation for that is. No current from the battery, but the battery is required to be in the circuit for the circuit to work.

So which part of my statement is a lie? The battery, or the conclusion that Mags must agree with you?

(And why would I want to go to Mexico? I live in San Antonio, Texas, remember. Mexico is here already, all around me, except with flush toilets.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 05:50:50 AM
No. That wasnt what I asked for.  It was the rolling on the floor that I wanted to hear silly.
Twisting things again. 

Mags

Oh sorry, I figured those numbers, IF YOU UNDERSTOOD THEIR SIGNIFICANCE, would make even YOU roll on the floor laughing, so you'd be able to hear yourself.

But I didn't realize you were so hard of hearing.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 19, 2012, 05:53:04 AM
Ok you win. In goin to get a good nights sleep.   ;)

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 05:55:45 AM
Well then. Which part isn't true?

Will your circuit run WITHOUT A BATTERY and heat up water? No? So a battery IS required for your circuit, isn't it, even though you didn't MEASURE any draw from it....

I wonder what the explanation for that is. No current from the battery, but the battery is required to be in the circuit for the circuit to work.

So which part of my statement is a lie? The battery, or the conclusion that Mags must agree with you?

AT LAST.  You need only refer to our second paper.  The entire explanation is there.  And that paper is copied on my blogspot.  Check it out TK.  Then you'll possibly understand what our actual claim is.   Not what you ASSUME our claim is.

Golly guys.  The man assumes he has the right to comment when he doesn't even know what he's commenting about.  It reminds me of his insistence in those posts - before it was locked - that our claim had already been debunked.  Then only did he realise he had never even done our test.  The man's been accessed for damage control.  But I'm not sure they've found the right man yet.  I think Poynty's the best option to carry this counter argument.  And that because he understand the implications of all this where the rest of them have no clue.

That's just a word of advice to our troll masters - wherever they are.

Rosie Pose,
AKA AS Rosemary, Rosie, Rose, Rosie Rose, and on an on and on,
I'm suffering from multi identity confusions. 

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 19, 2012, 05:59:35 AM
Posting 1 of 2.  ******  Capacitor Test  *******

Just for the heck of it, I will repost a very fast test that allows you to make an approximate measurement of the power consumption of Rosemary's circuit.

Note that Rosemary doesn't understand how capacitors work and dismissed my proposed test as one that would measure capacitor leakage.  She can't seem to wrap her brain around the fact that the capacitor is emulating one of her series batteries, and as the capacitor goes down in voltage while the circuit runs, that's definitive proof that the capacitor is outputting current into the load.  So if the capacitor is outputting current into the load, then the battery bank is also outputting current into the load.  That is proof that the bank of batteries would go flat if they ran her circuit for a long time.

This test would bust Rosie in 10 seconds flat and it would be game over.  I think that secretly she is petrified of this test:

>>>>>>>

Well I'll take one more crack at this.  The rationale for doing this is that Rosemary doesn't understand capacitors, and therefore can't understand how a capacitor could prove or disprove that her circuit is consuming energy.

We will do this with a concrete real-world example but make up some timings for illustrative purposes.

Rosemary, what we want to do is temporarily substitute one of your six batteries in series for a large capacitor.  I think that a 25-volt 25,000 uF electrolytic capacitor is about the size of a 350 ml coke can.  So lets put four of these in parallel to make a 100,000 uF capacitor.

Here is the procedure:

With the power off, connect the large capacitor across the third battery of the six batteries in series.   Let's assume the cap charges to 12.6 volts and you keep a hand-held multimeter connected to the capacitor measuring the voltage across the cap for the duration of the experiment.  Then simply disconnect one of the leads to the third battery so that you have the large capacitor temporally taking the place of the third battery.  You can say that the large capacitor is emulating the third battery in the series of six batteries.  The circuit will run just fine like this.  Have your scope hooked up so you can see your famous oscillations.

Now, switch the power on and see the oscillations on your scope.  Switch the power off after 10 seconds.  Time it with a stopwatch if you can or use the second hand on a watch.  Check the voltage on the big cap after 10 seconds.  Let's suppose that after 10 seconds that you see the voltage on the big capacitor is now 10.0 volts.  That's the end of the experiment.

Continued in part two.....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 19, 2012, 06:01:09 AM
Posting 2 of 2.  ******  Capacitor Test  *******

So, what just happened?

The answer is as follows:  The big capacitor was emulating one of the batteries.  You can see that the amount of energy in the capacitor went down, it output some energy and that energy went into the circuit, a.k.a.; the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor.

Here is the key point:  The capacitor was just one of six power sources in the chain, the other five were batteries.  If the capacitor output a certain amount of energy over 10 seconds, then you know that the other five batteries also output approximately the same amount of energy over 10 seconds.  You know this because they are all working together in series.

So, how much energy did the capacitor output over 10 seconds:

E = ((0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 12.6^2) - (0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 10.0^2)) = (7.938 - 5.000) = 2.938 Joules.

So, that means, when you factor in all six batteries that's approximately (6 * 2.938) = 17.628 Joules of energy that were transferred into the circuit over 10 seconds.

So, that means that the average power output from the five batteries and the large capacitor while the circuit was running was (17.628/10) = 1.7628 watts.

That also means that the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor together were dissipating dissipating about 1.7628 watts as heat while the circuit was running.

The fact that the voltage on the big capacitor goes down while the circuit is running shows that the circuit is acting conventionally and there is no "COP infnity" taking place.

So Rosemary, the challenge that has been put to you is to measure the power consumption in a different way to back up your claim.  If your claim is true then the capacitor that is acting as the substitute for one of the batteries will not go down in voltage.

I submit to you that this is an easy test to do.  The numbers have even been crunched for you, all that you have to do is punch in your own values.

As far as I am concerned you will be morally bankrupt if you dismiss this proposed alternative test as you have for so many other proposed alternative tests in the past.

The simple fact is you can't cling to your one measurement method done with the DSO as the "absolute truth."  You have now been told literally hundreds of times that you have made measurement errors.

I would be shocked if you actually undertook to get some help and actually do the test as outlined above.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:06:08 AM
See "Watt_Def.png" attachment.
See "Joule_Def.png" attachment.
@.99:
She doesn't understand that "PER" means "divided by" in the equations.

She thinks that "1 Joule = 1 Watt PER second" is mathematically the same as saying "1 Watt = 1 Joule PER second." So it's no use highlighting the "W=J/S" or the "J = W x S" definitions in the text... she has no clue what that means. If she can't even immediately tell by inspection that 220 x 20 isn't 2200.... you are doomed from the start.


This is what happens when you don't take algebra in high school, kiddies.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:10:32 AM
Posting 2 of 2.  ******  Capacitor Test  *******

I would be shocked if you actually undertook to get some help and actually do the test as outlined above.

MileHigh

LOL  MileHigh.  Then far be it from me to 'shock' you.  I've answered this proposal at length.  If you're not going to refer to my counter argument I'll not refer to your argument.  It's a waste of time. 

When were you re-instated?  And why?  Did Harti rope you in as another 'defender of the unity barrier'?  Or did you merely take up temporary residence at OUR.com?  And now you're back?  Delighted to see this.  I just hope you'll manage to keep your comments topical.  And a capacitor is only topical in conjunction with my previous replies.  But well done for filling another page.  Between you, and TK and Glen you've managed to add a good 6 pages or thereby to this thread - in one night.  My guess is that it'll do the job required - which is to take the argument away from any evidence of duplicity by TK and any genuine discussions related to my joule analysis with eatenbyagrue.  We've yet to determine that.  But hopefully between eatenbyagrue and myself.  Not that I'm drawing distinctions here - but he's patently a scholar and a gentleman and I'm inclined to rest on his advices.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:13:16 AM
@.99:
She doesn't understand that "PER" means "divided by" in the equations.

She thinks that "1 Joule = 1 Watt PER second" is mathematically the same as saying "1 Watt = 1 Joule PER second." So it's no use highlighting the "W=J/S" or the "J = W x S" definitions in the text... she has no clue what that means. If she can't even immediately tell by inspection that 220 x 20 isn't 2200.... you are doomed from the start.


This is what happens when you don't take algebra in high school, kiddies.

LOL  This is really good.  'Per' means 'divide by'?  Who would have thought?  Thankfully the readers here are absolute idiots and TK's knowledge of latin likely not be questioned.  What ever next?

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:13:21 AM
AT LAST.  You need only refer to our second paper.  The entire explanation is there.  And that paper is copied on my blogspot.  Check it out TK.  Then you'll possibly understand what our actual claim is.   Not what you ASSUME our claim is.

Golly guys.  The man assumes he has the right to comment when he doesn't even know what he's commenting about.  It reminds me of his insistence in those posts - before it was locked - that our claim had already been debunked.  Then only did he realise he had never even done our test.  The man's been accessed for damage control.  But I'm not sure they've found the right man yet.  I think Poynty's the best option to carry this counter argument.  And that because he understand the implications of all this where the rest of them have no clue.

That's just a word of advice to our troll masters - wherever they are.

Rosie Pose,
AKA AS Rosemary, Rosie, Rose, Rosie Rose, and on an on and on,
I'm suffering from multi identity confusions.
That's not the only confusions you're suffering from, liar.
The claim that I am disputing is here in this thread multiple times, in your own words and figures. I'm not going to quote it again, but it's post number 666 in this thread. You say you put 25.6 million Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. That's what you are claiming, until you  officially and publicly retract it, and that's what I'm disputing, for the moment. I don't care if you used a flmping BLOWTORCH to do it. It only takes a bit over two megaJoules to completely boil away 900 grams of water starting from 16 degrees C.
I don't need to read your paper again to dispute your claim of 25.6 million Joules which is based on an incorrect calculation three different ways at least.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:16:48 AM
That's not the only confusions you're suffering from, liar.
The claim that I am disputing is here in this thread multiple times, in your own words and figures. I'm not going to quote it again, but it's post number 666 in this thread. You say you put 25.6 million Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. That's what you are claiming, until you  officially and publicly retract it, and that's what I'm disputing, for the moment. I don't care if you used a flmping BLOWTORCH to do it. It only takes a bit over two megaJoules to completely boil away 900 grams of water starting from 16 degrees C.
I don't need to read your paper again to dispute your claim of 25.6 million Joules which is based on an incorrect calculation three different ways at least.

Golly.  I almost thought there - for a brief moment - that you wanted to keep this on topic.  Silly of me.  I should have known better.  You're only anxious to take this off topic.

Cheers TK.  How goes the funding for your little cottage by the sea?  Have you managed to get enough together since the market collapsed?  I see you've lost that easy access to all those oscilloscopes you had.  But my guess is that they were all of them in need of repair.  Do you see now how wasted were your efforts on that 'math trace' number.  You CLEAN forgot the need to first replicate the waveform.  But your videos then were as entertaining as they are now.  Can't wait to see you replicate our own circuit.

Ever Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:19:33 AM
LOL  This is really good.  'Per' means 'divide by'?  Who would have thought?  Thankfully the readers here are absolute idiots and TK's knowledge of latin likely not be questioned.  What ever next?

Rosie Pose
It's getting hard to decode your sarcasm. Do you mean that you think that "PER" does NOT mean "divided by" when used in this way?

Or are you really calling the readers here absolute idiots? I note that nobody, not even Mags, is defending your calculations. Eatenbyagrue, whether you realize it yet or not, is repeating the exact same course of correction that I have posted, at least three times now.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:23:30 AM
Dodge bob and weave, Rosemary, but don't address the real issues. You claim: 25.6 million Joules. 47.5 MEGAWATTS in six hours on your electric bill in your oxtail soup example. A Joule = a Watt PER second.
These are the real issues: your errors and misunderstandings, which invalidate any claim of overunity based on them.

FYI, I do still have access to better oscilloscopes than you will ever be allowed to touch. What is your evidence for your accusation that my equipment is not working properly?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:25:46 AM
It's getting hard to decode your sarcasm. Do you mean that you think that "PER" does NOT mean "divided by" when used in this way?

Or are you really calling the readers here absolute idiots? I note that nobody, not even Mags, is defending your calculations. Eatenbyagrue, whether you realize it yet or not, is repeating the exact same course of correction that I have posted, at least three times now.

To the best of my knowledge 'per' NEVER means divide by.  Not even in scientific terms.  Just look up the dictionary definition.  But nor am I saying that you shouldn't use the term in another context.  It's just that Wiki doesn't, is all.  But there you go.  Not everyone allows themselves the license to redefine words in common usage.  And far be it from me to propose that you follow suit.

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:29:05 AM
Golly.  I almost thought there - for a brief moment - that you wanted to keep this on topic.  Silly of me.  I should have known better.  You're only anxious to take this off topic.

Cheers TK.  How goes the funding for your little cottage by the sea?  Have you managed to get enough together since the market collapsed?  I see you've lost that easy access to all those oscilloscopes you had.  But my guess is that they were all of them in need of repair.  Do you see now how wasted were your efforts on that 'math trace' number.  You CLEAN forgot the need to first replicate the waveform.  But your videos then were as entertaining as they are now.  Can't wait to see you replicate our own circuit.

Ever Rosie

Since you are referring to my other oscilloscopes, you must be now talking about the first circuit of yours. Once again you lie, because I did indeed reproduce your magic waveform, your load heating time-temperature profiles, and much else with respect (sic) to that circuit. The evidence is there for all to see on my YT channel. I even used the same type of scopes that you claimed to have used, in addition to much more sophisticated scopes. And once again... I showed that you do not understand power computations. Remember the trouble you had with the term, "integration"? It was almost as funny as your present difficulty with "PER".
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:30:15 AM
FYI, I do still have access to better oscilloscopes than you will ever be allowed to touch. What is your evidence for your accusation that my equipment is not working properly?

LOL  The evidence on your own oscilloscope where at least one channel was out of use.  And by your own admission.  I got the distinct impression that you were doing a little repair job there TK.  Which makes you what?  A repair electrician?  Let us know.  And more to the point.  Let us know your real name.  We're all rather interested.  When I find this out and your address - then I'll call on you to account for your traducements.  Are you afraid of being held accountable?  Is that the problem? 

Rosie pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 19, 2012, 06:31:32 AM
Like I already stated Rosemary, "LOL" is your code word for when you are very uncomfortable with the discussion at hand.

Your counter arguments to the capacitor test were no good, and you were off in Rosie Posie Never Never land and not making any sense at all.

So you can "LOL" all you want but the capacitor test will bust you in ten seconds flat.  The capacitor test will show that the capacitor that is emulating the battery is outputting power to run your circuit in exactly the same manner as the battery it is temporarily replacing also has to output power to run your circuit.

Look, you still can't even understand the fact that the current loop that powers your nonsensical accidental circuit goes straight through the function generator.  You saw it in the simulation that someone ran about a week ago.  Nor can you understand that the function generator when outputting -5 volts is actually teaming up with the main battery bank and helping to power your circuit.

So you can be a blank slate and not understand how the current flows straight through the function generator, or how the function generator acts as another voltage source in series with your battery bank, or how a capacitor emulating one of your batteries can give you definitive proof that your circuit is conventional and not COP infinity.

Even though you are a blank slate and simply cannot understand these concepts, it doesn't mean that all three aren't true, it just means that you can't understand.

The truth is that all three things are true, and it's both unfortunate that you can't understand, and tough luck for you that you can't understand.

The capacitor test can bring this whole sorry saga to an end.  There are literally dozens of other tests that can do the same thing.  The advantage behind the capacitor test is that most of your peers on the free energy forums can understand the significance of the test and will instantly agree that your circuit is not COP infinity when they see the voltage on the capacitor decrease.

So I have a feeling that you are going to have to resort to using a lot more "LOL's" as time goes on because reality is going to catch up with you, you simply can't escape it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:32:48 AM
Since you are referring to my other oscilloscopes, you must be now talking about the first circuit of yours. Once again you lie, because I did indeed reproduce your magic waveform, your load heating time-temperature profiles, and much else with respect (sic) to that circuit. The evidence is there for all to see on my YT channel. I even used the same type of scopes that you claimed to have used, in addition to much more sophisticated scopes. And once again... I showed that you do not understand power computations. Remember the trouble you had with the term, "integration"? It was almost as funny as your present difficulty with "PER".

No TK.  You never even got close.  And more to the point - you still haven't replicated.  It's your true genius.  You manage to convince yourself that you have.  But this is it now TK.  I'm not answering any more of your posts.  So help me.  I need to get this back an topic and it seems that Harti is as anxious as you are that you destroy this thread.

Cheers TK.  And may your efforts at replicating bear some approximation to the experiment being replicated. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:33:39 AM
To the best of my knowledge 'per' NEVER means divide by.  Not even in scientific terms.  Just look up the dictionary definition.  But nor am I saying that you shouldn't use the term in another context.  It's just that Wiki doesn't, is all.  But there you go.  Not everyone allows themselves the license to redefine words in common usage.  And far be it from me to propose that you follow suit.

Rosie

So, say I travelled sixty miles PER hour, for one hour. How FAR did I go? Show your work.

Or, let's say I went 300 miles and used ten gallons of gasoline. How many miles PER gallon did I get? Show your work.

There are a dozen eggs PER carton. If I want 144 eggs, how many cartons do I need. Show your work.

Or just look at the definition pages .99 posted. In words they say "One Watt equals One Joule PER Second" and .99 has highlighted the part where it says " W = J / S ". 

Or do you dispute that the slash symbol or the horizontal bar symbol denotes division?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:34:40 AM
LOL MileHigh

You still haven't explained your emergence here.  In real time.  Let us know what transpired.  Then I may be persuaded to answer your post.

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:35:30 AM
LOL  The evidence on your own oscilloscope where at least one channel was out of use.  And by your own admission.  I got the distinct impression that you were doing a little repair job there TK.  Which makes you what?  A repair electrician?  Let us know.  And more to the point.  Let us know your real name.  We're all rather interested.  When I find this out and your address - then I'll call on you to account for your traducements.  Are you afraid of being held accountable?  Is that the problem? 

Rosie pose

Bring it on. You dare to threaten me?
I can prove everything I say, anywhere anytime, in court if you like, and you cannot. Let me warn you though... the jurisdiction will be in Texas.

Yes, for a demonstration of how to use an oscilloscope to track energy flows through integration of an instantaneous power waveform, I used a scope with one channel out. This did not at all affect the demonstration, as I clearly explained in the video. That scope can display two live traces and two math traces simultaneously, or any four selected from memory, math, or live. The lack of one working live channel was irrelevant to the demonstration I performed. Again, by implication, you lie, as that was NOT the primary oscilloscope that I used to debunk your circuit. Recall the FLUKE 123 and 199 ScopeMeters that I used? The SAME MODEL scopes that you claimed to have used for your original work.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
Just a reminder here.  I'm waiting for an answer.  You've stated that I can 'bring this on' were your words.  Well?  I'm bringing this on.  Let me
know who I'm dealing with.  Give some accountability.  You seem to be more than 'game'.  So am I.

Rosie Pose.
Bring it on. You dare to threaten me?
I can prove everything I say, anywhere anytime, in court if you like, and you cannot. Let me warn you though... the jurisdiction will be in Texas.

>>I can't TK.  Sadly.  Not until you give me your name and address.  If you email me I promise faithfully not to disclose it here.  It'll only be
public knowledge when it's appended to my claim.  Hows that for fair?


Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 06:43:05 AM
Rosemary,

PROOF YOUR PAPER IS JUNK .....

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315894/#msg315894

TO DENY THESE FACTS YOU ARE .....

bonkers, brainsick, cracked, crackers, crazed, crazy, crazy as a loon, cuckoo, daft, dellusional, demented, deranged, distraught, disturbed, dotty, fruity, insane, kooky, loco, loony, lunatic, mad, maniac, mad as a hatter, maniacal, mentally ill, mindless, moonstruck, non compos mentis, not all there, not of sound mind, nuts, nutsy, nutty, nutty as a fruitcake, neurotic, off one's rocker, out of one's mind, out to lunch, paranoid, psycho, psychopathic, psychotic, sick, sick in the head, schizophrenic, stark raving mad, touched, unbalanced, unhinged, unsound, unstable, wacky and a zipper head

GET OVER IT .... YOUR A JOKE  !!!


Fuzzy
 8)
*meow*


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:47:18 AM
Miles PER gallon. I used ten gallons and I went 300 miles. What is my Miles PER gallon, and how is it computed?

Or if you like, liters PER 100 kilometers. My car gets 3 liters PER 100 km, and I've gone 300 km. How much gas did I use, and how is it computed?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 19, 2012, 06:52:41 AM
The LOL deflection isn't working Rosemary and I am not telling you about how I am here.

I itemized three things that you clearly don't understand and the third one is the one that can bust you.

Just like the LED test is the "Light Emitting Diodes of Doom" test for your circuit the capacitor test also represents your claim's downfall.  Assuming that Poynt goes through with building and testing your circuit, then finally we will be able to put this to bed.

You are simply clinging for dear life to your DSO data and you still persist and insist that it's valid data when you describe the state of affairs of your claim.  The fact that you ignore the counterarguments means that you are simply propagandizing when you talk about your claim. You simply refuse to listen.

You have the blinders on and you are humming "LOL's" as loud as you possibly can to drown out all other sources of information.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 06:58:08 AM
Just a reminder here.  I'm waiting for an answer.  You've stated that I can 'bring this on' were your words.  Well?  I'm bringing this on.  Let me know who I'm dealing with.  Give some accountability.  You seem to be more than 'game'.  So am I. 

Rosie Pose.
>>I can't TK.  Sadly.  Not until you give me your name and address.  If you email me I promise faithfully not to disclose it here.  It'll only be public knowledge when it's appended to my claim.  Hows that for fair?

Rosie Pose

Go ahead and use your super sleuthing powers. You said that when you find out who I am you will do something to me. That's a threat, and I'm not going to walk into it; you're going to have to work for it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 06:59:10 AM
The LOL deflection isn't working Rosemary and I am not telling you about how I am here.
Then we have nothing further to discuss.  I'm more anxious to expose the 'background dialogue' than I am to enter into a discussion with you on any pretext at all.

Therefore we'll first need a certain 'quid pro quo' MileHigh which is always required as a basis of engagement.  Failing which I'll assume that you petitioned Harti to come to the defense of TK as his credibility was systematically being destroyed by Magsy.  And that Harti obliged this because he depends on TK to DEBUNK our claim - without ever giving it a chance to be tested.  If he, TK has no residual credibility then how can he debunk?  Your intervention was much needed.

Harti confused you with a competent defender of the faith.  You are, in fact, only a 'defender'. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 07:05:21 AM
Go ahead and use your super sleuthing powers. You said that when you find out who I am you will do something to me. That's a threat, and I'm
not going to walk into it; you're going to have to work for it.

No TK - that's neither my style nor my competence.  But assuming that you stand by your allegations then I would have thought you'd also be
prepared to stand by your libel - in it's manifold appearances.  But clearly you require this internet personality to hide behind any need for
accountability.  In which case you can say what you want and in any manner that you require and forever be unaccountable.  Which - in my book
- is an abuse of one's internet identity.  Unfortunately it rather diminishes anything at all that you claim.  Your statements are thereby
discounted - in their entirety.  You are simply abusing this anonymity to promote an agenda.  It is not something that you care that much about
that you'll defend it in Court.  Therefore which of the two of us occupies the moral highground?  I make no secret of my name.

Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 07:12:13 AM
To the best of my knowledge 'per' NEVER means divide by.  Not even in scientific terms.  Just look up the dictionary definition.  But nor am I saying that you shouldn't use the term in another context.  It's just that Wiki doesn't, is all.  But there you go.  Not everyone allows themselves the license to redefine words in common usage.  And far be it from me to propose that you follow suit.

Rosie

But you redefine words here all the time. One Joule = One Watt PER Second, remember?

http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/Kilometer_per_hour.html (http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/Kilometer_per_hour.html)
http://www.amathsdictionaryforkids.com/dictionary.html (http://www.amathsdictionaryforkids.com/dictionary.html) and select the Pp and then "percent". PER cent.
And of course your favorite reference which you won't understand (but others will, including the Judge of us all):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_%28mathematics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_%28mathematics%29)

Is that enough to convince you that "Per" denotes a division operation, and when we say a Watt is a Joule PER second we mean to divide the number of Joules by the number of seconds to get the answer in Watts?

Of course it isn't, because YOU redefine common terms to suit your fantasies all the time.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 07:23:54 AM
Moral highground. From someone who claims to have put 25.6 megajoules into less than a liter of water in 100 minutes, and winding up with water left over at the end. Right.

Rosemary, dealing with you is like stepping into some weird fantasy land, where everyone is blue, but claim to be green instead. Your posts, especially the latest ones concerning math and so on, indicate mental imbalance and frankly, you scare me. I think there is no telling what you might try to do if you knew my identity.
It's not that much of a secret anyway, but I certainly don't want the people close to me to be annoyed by a madwoman from the Southern Hemisphere.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 07:26:38 AM
TK - when you answer these posts then I'll engage in any discussion you require.  Until then I'm afraid your arguments are entirely discredited as
is your internet personality.  And I will ignore all further comments related to the topic under discussion.

Go ahead and use your super sleuthing powers. You said that when you find out who I am you will do something to me. That's a threat, and I'm
not going to walk into it; you're going to have to work for it.

No TK - that's neither my style nor my
competence.  But assuming that you stand by your allegations then I would have thought you'd also be prepared to stand by your libel - in it's
manifold appearances.  But clearly you require this internet personality to hide behind any need for accountability.  In which case you can say
what you want and in any manner that you require and forever be unaccountable.  Which - in my book - is an abuse of one's internet identity.
Unfortunately it rather diminishes anything at all that you claim.  Your statements are thereby discounted - in their entirety.  You are simply
abusing this anonymity to promote an agenda.  It is not something that you care that much about that you'll defend it in Court.  Therefore which
of the two of us occupies the moral highground?  I make no secret of my name.

Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 07:38:06 AM
"And I will ignore all further comments related to the topic under discussion."

You have finally said something that is probably true.

You can fire off all the ad hominem arguments you like. I'll stipulate that I'm a slimeball lowlife scumsucker, if you like, but that has NOTHING at ALL to do with your claim of 25.6 megaJoules and that that demonstration used more than the battery's capacity.

I could be Santa Claus, Bill Gates, or Satan himself, incarnate, and it wouldn't matter at all, you would still be laughably and totally wrong. And everybody reading here knows it.

Where are your defenders?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 07:39:14 AM

Rosemary,

So you are a coward and a fraud ..... and you still say your device has a COP>INFINITY ....

I WANT TO BROADCAST IT "LIVE" ON MY WEB SITE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE !!!

ROSEMARY ARE YOU a FRAUD or COWARD or BOTH !!!


http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org)


Fuzzy
 8)
*meow*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 19, 2012, 07:59:41 AM
Rosemary,

So you are a coward and a fraud ..... and you still say your device has a COP>INFINITY ....

I WANT TO BROADCAST IT "LIVE" ON MY WEB SITE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE !!!

ROSEMARY ARE YOU a FRAUD or COWARD or BOTH !!!


http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org)


Fuzzy
 8)
*meow*


You sound like a broken record.  What is wrong with you?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 08:09:10 AM
"What's wrong with you?"
Are you sure you're asking that of the right person?

It sounds to me like fuzzytomcat's offering the use of his website and bandwidth to stream a test of Rosemary's device to the world.
What is wrong with YOU, that you see something wrong with that?

And by the most liberal assumptions possible about "salt water" and boiling off quantities, you have still managed to come up with a Joule value that is NOT in excess of the battery's original capacity at all. Haven't you. Is there any way at all you can tweak your assumptions further, so that you can get somewhere near the 10.3 megaJoules contained in the battery at full charge? How about if the container the water was in melted down totally? Would that do it?

And note how slippery things are: the numbers and the way the test was done have changed. Now it's the resistor that was measured, not the water at all.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 08:10:17 AM
Like I said Rosemary ....  there is a special place made just for you and I bet guests and members cant wait .....

http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/scamsshams.html

EVERY POST SEALS YOUR FATE !!!


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 08:22:41 AM
Guys, when the time comes I've already undertaken this... we'll do our own live broadcast of those tests.  Not sure how to yet.  But I'll undertake
to go through this learning curve.  I have no intention - whatsoever - of engaging with Glen Lettenmaier on any basis at all.  As I've tried to
point out he has stolen our paper as his own property and yet denies the claims in that paper.  I don't think one needs the IQ of your average
rocket scientist to work out that any engagement on any basis at all would be somewhat prejudicial.

I'm rather amused to see that TK thinks his proposal is reasonable.  Golly.  Actually guys - I've been rolling with laughter.  This is all rather
comical - if somewhat sad.  We see a self confessed scoundrel backing Glen Lettenmaier who - correspondingly - claims he is as innocent as the
driven snow.  And so it goes.  Hopefully before the day is out I'll be able to talk at length with Poynty - who's got some points that need
addressing and that eatenbyagrue will explain what's wrong with my power analysis.  I'm reasonably confident that unlike our trolls, they both of
them have something of value to contribute. 
 
As ever,
Rosemary

added
And I left out the best part.  MileHigh was re-instated after having been banned for the last year or two - in order to come to TK's defense - and
to advise us all that TK's not the scoundrel that TK himself acknowledges in an extraordinary gesture of candour.  We're advised that TK's a
'good guy' I think were his words.  It really is hysterically comical.  TK so openly candid and MileHigh - not so much.  This one's for you MileHigh.
LOL 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 08:40:13 AM
Rosemary ..... your saying your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publications that the content are 100% TRUE and Factual.

YES   or   NO !!!

This is being recorded as your statement of fact, any thing other than a yes or no 24 Hrs from this posting if not answered, will be a "NO" and recorded as such !!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



We established "CUT OFF" dates for your NERD RAT published device schematics based on established 12 MARCH 2011 "VIDEO" evidence .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315729/#msg315729 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../msg315729/#msg315729)      Reply #1117 on: March 17, 2012, 12:45:43 AM



FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2011_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

12_MARCH_2011_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosemary your schematic in your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publication show .....

ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf     ( Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus )

ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf    ( Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure )

Both PDF schematics shown and referenced for PEER REVIEW is ....

12_MARCH_2011_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

Therefore SCOPE SHOTS and DATA DUMPS for .....

ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf 

Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #4    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #5    dated 02/09/11    500us    49.5v    (4 battery)
Fig #8    dated 02/16/11    500us    74.1v    (6 battery)

ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf

Fig #2    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #8    dated 03/02/11    2us    62.9v    (5 battery)

AND THIS IS THE CORRECT "NERD RAT COP>INFINITY" DEVICE SCHEMATIC .....

FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2011_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )


Your papers correct and completed submitted for PEER REVIEW and publication show the schematic is "incorrect" your scope shots and data dumps are wrong and the documents ......

ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf     ( Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus )
ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf    ( Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure )

These PDF's and content should be withdrawn anywhere and everywhere they are, followed by a retraction by YOU of the mistakes made in your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW .


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: energy1234hope on March 19, 2012, 08:51:15 AM
Really nasty trolls out and about today. In one ear and out the other rosie that's the best way to deal with rude crude people.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 19, 2012, 01:01:31 PM
Really nasty trolls out and about today. In one ear and out the other rosie that's the best way to deal with rude crude people.

You need to read more to understand that this situation has been going on for years and there are other threads and other forums that you probably haven't even seen, tens of thousands of posts, all leading to one conclusion that this circuit does not work as claimed.

I know you are new here and there is a lot of information to take in so you probably missed this post.
Everyone please note:

I have ALWAYS encouraged anyone with the skill and the wit and the kit to build and test Rosemary's claims for themselves. Go ahead and do it. Show your work, share it, and there is enough expertise here so that you can get it right. Just do it.

I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes using her circuit, as she has claimed she has done, over and over.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 01:09:32 PM
"And I will ignore all further comments related to the topic under discussion."

You have finally said something that is probably true.

You can fire off all the ad hominem arguments you like. I'll stipulate that I'm a slimeball lowlife scumsucker, if you like, but that has NOTHING at
ALL to do with your claim of 25.6 megaJoules and that that demonstration used more than the battery's capacity.

I could be Santa Claus, Bill Gates, or Satan himself, incarnate, and it wouldn't matter at all, you would still be laughably and totally wrong. And
everybody reading here knows it.

Where are your defenders?
Guys I've copied this so that it can be readable.  Fuzzy is doing his trick with that 'falling off the page' bit.  You must all make allowances.  He is
dyslexic and can hardly write let alone read.  Which is why he relies on pasting over copious and irrelevant posts in his efforts to distance my
comments from your focus.  Sadly we're dealing with an infantile mind that relies on his rather colourful tantrums to communicate anything
at all.  His dyslexia is not his fault.  Some of my best friends are dyslexic.  What is his fault is that he is so far without professional principle that
he cannot engage in any level of professional conduct.  I personally would be rather ashamed if anyone of his type would ever approve of me.
 
Thankfully they seem to rather dislike me.  Which is a matter of some considerable personal pride.  I am only sorry that it is not only myself who
is irritated by these constant interventions.  It seems that war is war.  And Wilby was right to not engage, which he described as this 'Vietrnam'.
Hopefully between the 'snipes' and covert attacks I can yet reference what matters.  I'm only sorry - yet again - that I seem to induce this level
of aggression.  It escalates every time the topic becomes interesting.  Go figger.  And I have no option - but to engage.  But I'll try and minimise
the comment in the hopes of somehow salvaging the object of this topic.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 01:32:59 PM
Bring it on. You dare to threaten me?
I can prove everything I say, anywhere anytime, in court if you like, and you cannot. Let me warn you though... the jurisdiction will be in Texas.

Another reminder TK.  I'm most anxious to 'bring it on' - and indeed I dare threaten you.  Let us know your name and then I will be happy to
engage with you - in a most appropriate manner.  Until then I put it to you that you are a coward - abusing your internet anonymity to destroy
my good name while you protect your own.

Let us see the courage that you claim I lack.  Go on TK.  How about it?  I won't bother with Harvey Gramm, nor with Glen Lettenmaier - as I'm
not sure that I'd be able to even salvage my costs.  But I've got a shrewd idea that I'd do rather well off you.  Let's see whether you can manage
to defend yourself when the playing fields are leveled?  Or are you rather too frightened to put your word to the test in a court of law where such
things are usually managed?

Can't wait.  It will be the most entertaining experience yet - where I will be able to kill two birds with one stone and do so publicly.   The one bird
is your interventions and the second bird is our unity barriers.  Both have outlived their value.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 02:06:12 PM
And another reminder.  This time for Powercat who is on record for vociferously denying that any of our tests have ever been replicated.  Kindly
note.  Glen Lettenmaier's own Scribd publication of my own paper claims categorically that he has 'replicated' our earlier COP>17 test. He did not
quite manage COP>17.  But he certainly achieved COP>1.  And in the context of over unity - then that, in itself - is actually enough.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)

The opening paragraph stipulates

The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonating
frequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Results
indicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an
alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...
The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest)
published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical
magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the
experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate
the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was
considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating
to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.

Here's the measure of the man Guys.  I believe Powercat is most anxious that you believe there has never been a replication.  So odd.  When
Glen Lettenmaier himself claims this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 02:20:58 PM
And for those of you who may yet be rather puzzled by all this gratuitous engagement by so many of the 'heavy weights' - with those trolls who,
historically, have managed so much damage - then here's the thing.  I put it to you that there is something that is so desirable in this technology
that these 'personalities' need to orchestrate this extraordinary attack.  Please note.  There is Glen trying to muscle the technology away from me
and into his own clutches.  There's TK who is most anxious to generate as much criticism of me as can be managed with Harti's indulgence.  And there's now even MileHigh - recruited to manage the damage that TK's doing to himself. 

It is that which is 'desirable' in this technology - that needs must be diminished.  I get the distinct impression that the actual attack is to refute
evidence of over unity itself.  Because, to date, I think our technology is the only proof of this - outside of cold fusion.  And it's that proof that
promises so much independence from our oil producers - that is actually the real threat.  Which is simply my personal opinion.  Because why else
would a rather elderly, utterly uneducated, and somewhat senile old lady - attract all this attention?  I ask you?

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 19, 2012, 02:34:07 PM
And another reminder.  This time for Powercat who is on record for vociferously denying that any of our tests have ever been replicated.

I'm beginning to feel even more convinced that Rosemary is suffering from a medical condition.

For the three readers and anyone else,
this is a classic statement from Rosemary where  she twists the truth, what I have said in the past and it is on record,
is that no one on this forum has ever successfully replicated Rosemary's claim, (that's right the claim)

We all know the circuit has been replicated, but without successfully reproducing Rosemary's claim.

I could start re-posting all my previous posts where I state that the problem is with her claim, but as this thread is going along at a good rate with a very interesting debate, I will leave it for another day, unless of course Rosemary wants to retract her statement, but as she lives in denial this would seem unlikely

It's a real shame because when she's not going on about her claim, she can make a positive contribution to this community.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 03:02:52 PM
See how she threatens and postures? All the while making inane statements about math, crazy calculations, redefining physics definitions, and dodging the actual issues and questions and proposals. Attacking whatever she can, flailing about like someone stuck in quicksand.

Watch: when eatenbyagrue continues with his little tutorial (taking the same path and using the same conventional math that I have done several times) and finally reaches the conclusion in his own mind about Rosemary's calculations and claims... she will turn on him, as well. I've seen her do the same thing to all her former supporters. Nobody at Naked Scientists was gullible enough to fall for her garbage; they banned her early on for her nonsensical conjectures and her sloppy practices. But ever since then, she's gone through a cycle with her supporters. FuzzyTomcat is an excellent, still present example. Eatenbyagrue, be careful. She'll wind up threatening you, too, if you don't agree with her crazy math.

Slices PER pie. Miles PER hour. Joules PER second. PERcent.  Somebody tell me please... does the word "PER" have anything to do with a division operation? When I say "One Watt is equal to One Joule PER Second", is this the same as 1 W = (1 J) / ( 1 S) ? Do we not determine the POWER in Watts by taking the number of JOULES dissipated, and DIVIDING that number by the number of SECONDS over which the dissipation occurred? Yet Rosemary shows her ignorance by denying even the simple basic fact that the word "PER" denotes a division operation.

Wilful and arrogant ignorance. The resources exist for her easily to educate herself. Note that I have provided references all along for my stance and my assertions. NOBODY has to take my word for anything, you can "DO THE MATH" for yourself -- if you know how. But Rosemary's overweening arrogance prevents her from acknowledging that just maybe, she could possibly be wrong -- even in the face of ample proof that she is.
"1 Joule = 1 Watt per Second" and eatenbyagrue thinks it's just a typo or transposition, when there's ample evidence that she actually believes it is so... and has said so several times in spite of eaten's help.

Well, eatenbyagrue, carry on. We are all three of us waiting for your next session with Rosemary's arithmetic. Let me remind you: 10.3 MegaJoules in the battery pack. 25.6 MegaJoules delivered to 900 grams water in 100 minutes according to Rosemary without mentioning water loss, only "boiling at the end".  Your own calculation of less than a megaJoule to boil away a substantial part of the water, mine of a little over 2 MJ to completely boil the water away.  Under what assumptions could Rosemary's claim that "this one test alone" used more energy than was originally contained in the battery pack?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 03:08:18 PM
My dear powercat
I'm beginning to feel even more convinced that Rosemary is suffering from a medical condition.
I trust that you're a qualified psychiatrist?  Is it?  Or a psychologist?  And that your opinion here is based on the evidence?  Or is the defense of some historical truths to be considered lunatic.  You were directly responsible for the closure of a previous thread here.  One of many.  And you managed this by this through the simple expediency of ignoring every response I made to your allegations - and simply reposting your post. 

And your essential claim is that no-one had replicated our circuit.  Now.  NOTA BENE.  You're still referencing UTTERLY INCORRECT FACTS. 

For the three readers and anyone else,
I believed there are considerably more than 3 readers here. 

 
this is a classic statement from Rosemary where  she twists the truth, what I have said in the past and it is on record, is that no one on this forum has ever successfully replicated Rosemary's claim, (that's right the claim)
There is only one claim.  This is it.  COP>1 has been MEASURED - PROVEN - AND THEN REPLICATED.  Traditionally that's all that's required. 

We all know the circuit has been replicated, but without successfully reproducing Rosemary's claim.
Still wrong.  The circuit was replicated.  But Glen Lettenmaier now REFUTES THAT REPLICATION.  If you are concerned about the level of reproducibility - then rest easy.  A fraction of COP greater than 1 is all that's required.

Guys it's a mater of some considerable concern to me that there are still those of you who are not aware of this.  By rights we should all be celebrating and 'moving on' - to new and better technologies - this latest of our's being just one small example.

Cat - you're objects here are absolutely NOT in the interests of over unity.  And I suspect that they never have been.  Especially when I see that sad little propagandising reference to just 3 readers of this thread.  And you have the temerity to advise everyone that I am deluded?  I think you're pointing to the wrong person.

Rosemary

No changes.  Just deleted part of the referenced quote.  Also - I couldn't preview because Harti's system went into freeze mode - yet again.  But it seems to have got unstuck - AT LAST.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 19, 2012, 04:34:20 PM
To the best of my knowledge 'per' NEVER means divide by.  Not even in scientific terms.  Just look up the dictionary definition.  But nor am I saying that you shouldn't use the term in another context.  It's just that Wiki doesn't, is all.  But there you go.  Not everyone allows themselves the license to redefine words in common usage.  And far be it from me to propose that you follow suit.

Rosie

I will help you out TK, this has gone on way past ridiculous! Now do you see why I was reluctant to do the math ? You cannot argue facts with someone whose very purpose for being depends on denial and distortion of those facts. Anyway, what does “per” mean ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_%28mathematics%29

“Another kind of fraction is the percentage (Latin per centum meaning "per hundred", represented by the symbol %), in which the implied denominator is always 100. Thus, 75% means 75/100. Related concepts are the permille, with 1000 as implied denominator, and the more general parts-per notation, as in 75 parts per million, meaning that the proportion is 75/1,000,000.”

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per

Preposition
per
1. for each
Admission is £10 per person.
2. to each, in each (used in expressing ratios of units)
miles per gallon
beats per minute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-unit_system

In the power transmission field of electrical engineering, a per-unit system is the expression of system quantities as fractions of a defined base unit quantity. Calculations are simplified because quantities expressed as per-unit are the same regardless of the voltage level. Similar types of apparatus will have impedances, voltage drops and losses that are the same when expressed as a per-unit fraction of the equipment rating, even if the unit size varies widely. Conversion of per-unit quantities to volts, ohms, or amperes requires a knowledge of the base that the per-unit quantities were referenced to.
A per-unit system provides units for power, voltage, current, impedance, and admittance. Only two of these are independent, usually power and voltage. All quantities are specified as multiples of selected base values. For example, the base power might be the rated power of a transformer, or perhaps an arbitrarily selected power which makes power quantities in the system more convenient. The base voltage might be the nominal voltage of a bus. Different types of quantities are labeled with the same symbol (pu); it should be clear from context whether the quantity is a voltage, current, etc.
Per-unit is used primarily in power flow studies; however, because parameters of transformers and machines (electric motors and electrical generators) are often specified in terms of per-unit, it is important for all power engineers to be familiar with the concept.

http://www.themathpage.com/arith/division.htm

3
What is a rate?

A rate is a relationship between units of different kinds. Dollars per person. Miles per hour. And so on.

A rate is typically indicated by per, which means for each or in each.
In a calculation, per always indicates division.
Example 7. In a certain country, the unit of currency is the corona. With $11 Ana was able to buy 55 coronas. What was the rate of exchange? That is, how many coronas per dollar?
Solution. Follow the sequence: coronas per dollar: 55 ÷ 11 = 5.
The rate of exchange was 5 coronas per dollar.
Any rate problem -- dollars per person, miles per hour -- is equivalent to dividing a number into equal parts. (In this example, we divided 55 coronas into 11 equal parts; each part being worth 1 dollar.) Rate problems can therefore can be analyzed in the same manner as the Example above. To preserve the meaning of division, we must divide units of the same kind, even though that is not how it appears.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141049458,00.html?strSrchSql=maths/Maths_Doesn%27t_Suck_Danica_McKellar

Maths Doesn't Suck
How to survive year 6 through year 9 maths without losing your mind or breaking a nail
by Danica McKellar

RM :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 19, 2012, 04:36:46 PM
Well, eatenbyagrue, carry on. We are all three of us waiting for your next session with Rosemary's arithmetic. Let me remind you: 10.3 MegaJoules in the battery pack. 25.6 MegaJoules delivered to 900 grams water in 100 minutes according to Rosemary without mentioning water loss, only "boiling at the end".  Your own calculation of less than a megaJoule to boil away a substantial part of the water, mine of a little over 2 MJ to completely boil the water away.  Under what assumptions could Rosemary's claim that "this one test alone" used more energy than was originally contained in the battery pack?


So what if she is a little off on the math.  Why do you guys make such a big deal with these minor quibbles.  Look, the circuit is open source.  Rosemary does not hold a patent on it.  So the circuit belongs to everyone, to all of us.  So when you attack the circuit, you are attacking something that belongs to you too.


Instead of being so negative, just fix what you think Rosemary has done wrong, and then this circuit will work for all of us.


Also, as an aside, I am a lawyer in Houston, Texas and am licensed to practice in all the courts in this state, and I will gladly defend Rosemary from all suits from you.  Also, I cannot fathom what cause of action you might possibly have.  Libel of your anonymous online personality?  Please!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 05:56:49 PM
Hello eatenbyagrue,

I see that you're still satisfied that my energy conclusions are wrong.  As it's you - I'm not prepared to argue this.  LOL.  I'll just quietly hold to my own opinion and reserve all further mention of it.  One day, hopefully, someone will explain it in the context of the analogy that I used related to oxtail soup.  I have absolutely no desire to quarrel with my few supporters. And the claim is extraneous to our paper so is of absolutely no material relevance to anything than my own 'uninformed' opinion - backed up in discussion with an expert in electrical engineering.  When I finally find a power engineer - which I hope to do tomorrow - then I'll hopefully have this matter explained to me.  Until then - it's best kept off forum.

Meanwhile - thank you for your intention to defend me against an action by TK.   In fact, I was rather hoping to bring an action here.  I'm not sure that this can happen - unfortunately - until he discloses his name - at least.  And I believe he actually lives in Canada.  But am open to correction.  He'll need to own up to his actual identity.  And I'm not sure how vulnerable my already vulnerable position here would be if I solicited legal advice from a member.  The only thing I know is that any such action would be of riveting interest to a great many people.  The more so as it would be an opportunity to bring our apparatus to Court as a required exhibit.  And that would then give one the opportunity to get it demonstrated publicly.  The concept of all that publicity is intensely alluring.  So yes.  I am more than ready to do something about this.  And I have, in fact, put money aside to deal with this should the opportunity arise.  Any advices would be gratefully appreciated but I suspect it's more appropriate off forum. 

Meanwhile - my mission is to get it generally known that the unity barrier has been breached.  And not only have we done this.  There have been many such.  It's just that the results are challenged on the thinnest grounds - or ridiculed - or both.  So.  The bottom line is that forums are NOT the best medium.  But in the absence of others - then it's better than nothing.  I'm hoping our papers will be published soon.  But frankly, I'll use whatever means are available to 'spread the word'.  Challenging Poynty for prizes is one way.  Court is another.  Publication a third.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 07:11:11 PM

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315956/#msg315956      Reply #1224 on: Today at 12:40:13 AM

Rosemary ..... your saying your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publications that the content are 100% TRUE and Factual.YES   or   NO !!!

This is being recorded as your statement of fact, any thing other than a yes or no 24 Hrs from this posting if not answered, will be a "NO" and recorded as such !!


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MY ATTORNEY AND I NEED THIS LAST BIT OF INFORMATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LIBEL SUIT AGAINST YOU.
YOUR TIME IS RUNNING OUT !!!

 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 07:58:32 PM

So what if she is a little off on the math.  Why do you guys make such a big deal with these minor quibbles.
Her math error leads her to the conclusion that the test used more energy than the battery contained. This is the root of her entire overunity claim. As YOU have shown, when the math is done properly, the amount of energy is NOWHERE NEAR the battery's total capacity. Therefore.... the claim that it is is either a MISTAKE that needs to be corrected, or a LIE, seeking to claim a monetary prize. You are a lawyer? Did you know that the TRUTH is a defense against libel? And making false claims in the attempt to gain a monetary award is ... well, I'm sure you've got a legal dictionary at hand.
Quote
Look, the circuit is open source.  Rosemary does not hold a patent on it.  So the circuit belongs to everyone, to all of us.  So when you attack the circuit, you are attacking something that belongs to you too.


Instead of being so negative, just fix what you think Rosemary has done wrong, and then this circuit will work for all of us.


Also, as an aside, I am a lawyer in Houston, Texas and am licensed to practice in all the courts in this state, and I will gladly defend Rosemary from all suits from you.  Also, I cannot fathom what cause of action you might possibly have.  Libel of your anonymous online personality?  Please!

Let me point out that you've got it backwards. Rosemary is threatening ME, not the other way around. And I would be glad if you can point out ANYTHING I'VE SAID concerning her claims in that quote that isn't the truth. Then please point out the things that Rosemary said in that quote--- applying for a monetary prize remember... that aren't true.

Now, on another blog, I read that Rosemary has actually made some kind of death threat against me. I can't find it -- maybe it's in another of her blogs somewhere... but I do not doubt that she might do such a thing.

What say ye to that, Counselor?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 19, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
Now, on another blog, I read that Rosemary has actually made some kind of death threat against me. I can't find it -- maybe it's in another of her blogs somewhere... but I do not doubt that she might do such a thing.

What say ye to that, Counselor?


It is true that the truth is a defense to any libel or slander claim.  And death threats, from a nice lady in South Africa, come on, you could not possibly take that seriously?  I am sure she was using hyperbole.


It heartens me to know that you do not plan on suing our good friend Rosemary.  Anyway, a lawsuit between people in different countries is usually a pipe dream.


And yes, due to the math I have done, it appears more testing might be in order, but I really think Rosemary is onto something here.  I just wish you guys would give her more of a chance to pursue her work without this constant harassment.  Fuzzy appears particularly a strange one, constantly berating the forum with his incessant requests for a live feed.


None of you guys have contracted with Rosemary or have given her any money to do this work, or have really contributed effort, so what are all these expectations?  We are all on the same side here, so just let her do her thing.  She just might surprise you!





Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 08:11:15 PM
FuzzyTomcat has posted the two circuit diagrams. I now understand something I didn't fully get before. The first diagram showing one mosfet, is actually supposed to represent  a stack of mosfets in strict parallel, five I think.
But if you take ONE of them and ... perhaps inadvertently due to layout issues... simply reverse it, put it upside down,  or wire it from underneath (mirror image).... the circuit instantly morphs into the second circuit, with gate to source,  and drains together.
I didn't fully understand this "serendipitous mistake" earlier, but I do now. And it's sinking in. As are the implications thereof.

Now, I see that .99 and Rosemary are discussing testing with three 12 volt batteries of low amp-hour capacity, instead of 6 batteries of 40 A-H capacity. I'm glad that they seem to agree that the testing can be done at 36 volts, and that lower capacity batteries might be suitable... because I just went out and bought 3 brand new 12-volt, 5 A-H sealed lead-acid batteries, and they are charging up on my automatic regulated charger right now.

Ooops... now I've made it impossible for Rosemary's and .99's test to work with 36 volts... since that's what I'm using. Oh, well....  sorry about that. Careful, though... I'm also using the IRFPG50 mosfet, and we wouldn't want to disqualify THAT item, just because "TK uses it", would we.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
@eatenbyagrue:
You still seem to think that "all of us guys" are as new to the Ainslie affair as you are, and that we've contributed nothing but words to the affray.

I ask you (again, I believe) to go to my YouTube channel and search my videos for the terms "Electric OU" and "Ainslie". Please review the videos and explanations in chronological order, starting from the first ones done years ago. Unfortunately, many of the forum threads that contained discussions concerning these videos have been removed or censored or otherwise edited-- I refer specifically to the Panacea University - Ashtweth - Aaron (qiman) threads. However, I think you will be able to "catch the drift" of the issues discussed. Ashtweth and Aaron were among Rosemary's early and enthusiastic supporters.... until the inevitable happened, and she got herself banned from even that forum.  That's about the time FuzzyTomcat got involved, also.

Then there's the full story of her IEEE journal submissions...but don't take my word for it NOR HERS. Look it up for yourself.

ETA: I almost forgot.... but since you mentioned the word "PATENT".... did you know Rosemary claimed for a long time to have a patent on the earlier, COP>17 circuit and process? It took a lot of struggling with her semantics issues to get her to acknowledge in public that having a lapsed, ungranted WPTO patent APPLICATION isn't quite the same thing as holding a "patent".
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 19, 2012, 08:25:44 PM
@eatenbyagrue:
You still seem to think that "all of us guys" are as new to the Ainslie affair as you are, and that we've contributed nothing but words to the affray.

I ask you (again, I believe) to go to my YouTube channel and search my videos for the terms "Electric OU" and "Ainslie". Please review the videos and explanations in chronological order, starting from the first ones done years ago. Unfortunately, many of the forum threads that contained discussions concerning these videos have been removed or censored or otherwise edited-- I refer specifically to the Panacea University - Ashtweth - Aaron (qiman) threads. However, I think you will be able to "catch the drift" of the issues discussed. Ashtweth and Aaron were among Rosemary's early and enthusiastic supporters.... until the inevitable happened, and she got herself banned from even that forum.  That's about the time FuzzyTomcat got involved, also.

Then there's the full story of her IEEE journal submissions...but don't take my word for it NOR HERS. Look it up for yourself.


Thank you for the links, I will check them out!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 08:51:16 PM
Well,they weren't really links, but you're welcome anyway.

Now.. this is a link.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27577.msg291529#msg291529 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27577.msg291529#msg291529)
Note the date of the post. Browse around in that forum for posts by Rosemary. I'm sure you'll find it entertaining.
Here's another one:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg290447#msg290447 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg290447#msg290447)
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg256896#msg256896 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg256896#msg256896)  "I patented it, and then allowed it to lapse..."

Ahh.. a blast from the past. TK, .99 and MileHigh... together again with Rosemary, in 2009.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27577 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27577)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 09:41:48 PM
Guests and Members

Some of the most damning slanderous unfounded accusations from Rosemary against me is about her "SCRIBD" paper and my THEFT and REMOVAL of her "SCRIBD" document.

"OUR" REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF ROSEMARY"S "SCRIBD" DOCUMENT -

1) The document Rosemary filed at SCRIBD was water marked "FOR PEER REVIEW" from the IEEE and with the entire REMOVAL of all AUTHORS names on the document.

2) The visit from Rosemary to Professor DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn  (Head) Centre for Distributed Power & Electronic Systems Faculty of Engineering "Cape Peninsula University of Technology

    (CUPT) with her "SCRIBD" document water marked "FOR PEER REVIEW" without any AUTHORS names on it giving a COPY to DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn , as SOLELY her own work. 


Please find attached 100% verifiable e-mail correspondence -

1) Complete set of "SCRIBD" e-mails transcripts - ( Scribd_07-10_02.pdf / Scribd_07-10_03.pdf )
   
2) Inquiry responce from Professor DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn ( CUPT ) - ( Dr_Kahn_01.pdf )


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 19, 2012, 10:38:57 PM
Guests, Members, Academics, Engineers and Experimentalist

Here is the magical COP>INFINITY device circuit designed by the NERD RAT team in South Africa ..... in it's most simplest form ...

LOOK ??  WHAT'S THIS ??  International Rectifier IRFPG 50 Hexfet Mosfet Data Sheet FIGURE 12a ?? ( irfpg50.pdf )

ODD, KIND OF LOOKS THE SAME ?? THINK ??

 :P

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 12:46:19 AM
There really are only a limited number of ways you can hook six components together.


Meanwhile...
I realise there are supposed to be a bunch of mosfets where that one is. My supplier says they will be back in stock by Friday or Monday next... we shall see.

I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to get up to 4100 Watts (Rosemary's claim: 25.6 million Joules PER 100 minutes), though, even with a big stack of mosfets. Let's see.... 4100 Watts at 60 volts requires a current of a bit over 68 Amps. But I'm only using 36 volts or 3/5 of her voltage,  so perhaps I should only expect to get 2460 Watts at 36 volts, needing a current of ... uh oh.... the same 68 amps. ( Do you detect a little sarcasm and irony here?)

But the IRFPG50's maximum continuous current when cold is only a bit over 6 amps, and when it warms up that drops to under 4 amps.

Now, I've seen plenty of mosfets explode.

But never five or six at once. This is going to be fun.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 20, 2012, 01:24:35 AM
Rosemary:

Just a few final comments about my capacitor test and some other issues.

I was not 'recruited' to come to TK's defense.  That's ridiculous, he is a grown man.  Getting reinstated has nothing whatsoever to do with you and is not relevant.  I don't buy your alleged 'paranoid delusions' at all.  They are just a card you play from time to time.  It's been a while since you had to pay to get your computer scrubbed.  The Powers That Be must be slacking off.

Look at your friend Magsy and his fascist tendencies, threatening to preemptively get me booted off if I dared ever show up:

Quote
Then you will come to OU under a new FAKE member, like SpikyVoltage, or PoonPoonMagoon, what ever.  And I will recognize you, as done before, and you will get banned again, just as you have before.  Your a known Rebannder.  lol 

There is only one word for that:  SHAME!

You try to hide behind the "LOL's" and you are trying to hide from the capacitor test by linking that with my reinstatement.  There is no connection and there is no deal, period.

The bottom line is this:  The vast majority of experimenters on all of the free energy forums understand that they can use a charged capacitor in place of the battery or the power supply.  They all know either intuitively or from theory or from direct experience that when you use a capacitor to power a circuit, that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease over time.  Most of them know how to calculate the expended energy also.

So, in other words, 99% of the people around here can relate to this test, they get it.  You simply can't hide from this fact.

With metaphysical certitude my capacitor test will show that your circuit actually drains the batteries and the circuit consumes current.  There is no escape Rosemary, Nature is not going to lie just because you are clinging to your junk DSO measurements.

So, I just wanted that to be repeated so that everybody reading this thread understands what the ramifications of the capacitor test are.  It will take ten seconds to determine if your circuit is "COP infinity" or if it actually consumes power and is 100% conventional and is under unity.

There is a parallel here with Rossi refusing an offer of one million dollars if he will submit to objective testing.  He won't even though if he did pass the test he would get tens of millions of dollars worth of free publicity.  It doesn't make any sense.  Rossi looks like a con artist and is following the con artist script to the letter.  So if you refuse the test your esteem with your peers drops down that much more.  You can't hide forever and the truth will be coming out.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 20, 2012, 01:42:22 AM
And the only reason to go this far at this point in time is pure principle.  This web site is insignificant in the overall scheme of things, even though some others might think differently.  By the same token the Rosemary Ainslie circuit is insignificant.

But a principle is involved.  What is the truth and what does it mean to us?  Do we just run around willy-nilly like a bunch of guppies in a fishtank or do we try to apply logic and reason to our lives?

To read about our "boffins" and "barriers being breached" gets very tedious and it starts to get offensive.  We have a collective responsibility to "hold it together" and not degenerate into a bunch of retards.

Like I said, if Poynt does follow-through and does a full-blown replication to the satisfaction of all, then the truth will come out and we can all close this chapter from the "Dark Ages" and shed some light on people.  We have to start thinking, really thinking, and not just being sheep.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 02:08:43 AM
Guys

What a to do.   ::) :o   I don't want to count the number of pages that have now rolled over - courtesy our trolls.  I got a total of 31 notifications of posting in my email - just yesterday.  The count roughly 5 'for' - 26 'against'.  Not sure if this is right but I think that works out at plus/minus 16% in favour .... and that number 'falling'.   :'( On the whole I think over unity is still the loser.  And my poor efforts along with it.  As MileHigh points out - it's round about now that I write LOL.  These stats are alarming.  If I was to lay a bet on the possible survival of over unity evidence - then I'd plumb for a certain 'fail'.

Delighted to see that TK is still taking his own circuit variants seriously.  Else where would he find his justifications to argue?  And then poor Glen Lettenmaier is trying to communicate something.  God alone knows what?  Clarity is not his strong point.  And MileHigh - who's got a style of writing that I positively envy - is, unfortunately, now regressing into pure propaganda.  Again, MilesUpInTheAir - this is for you.  LOL

And at the risk of boring you all with more repetition - there's been so, so much of it - here's the thing.  Our early claim of COP>17 was replicated - in full public view.  A paper was written on this and roundly rejected by two publications within the IEEE group without going to review.  That replication was subsequently and very articulately denied on Energetic Forum - by both Glen and Harvey Gramm.  Meanwhile ownership of that paper was zapped by our Glen - who is nothing if not unscrupulous - and under oath he declared to Scribd authorities - that this was exclusively his own work. I was not allowed to post the updated TIE version and was threatened with 'banishment' - God forbid - if I persisted with this claim that I had any part of that paper.  I'm like the mother in the Bible who preferred to let the baby be taken away from her than allow it to be cut in half and thereby killed.  Better something than nothing.   :'(

But confusion ABOUNDS - as it's said.  Glen Lettenmaier claims he NEVER replicated anything at all.  Harvey helped him out by insisting that it can't be a replication.  Glen only managed COP>4.  Rosemary managed COP>17.  Therefore, confusingly, the only conclusion to draw from this is that Glen actually and independently orchestrated his own 'discovery'.  And in and amongst all these quibbles and niceties - the fact that there was ever a breach of unity at all - was conveniently forgotten.  Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity was, in fact breached.  And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this.  All along?  And here again I've just seen how urgently MileHigh has denied this.  And so it goes. 

Round and round the mulberry bush. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited a possesive pronoun.  Ever my weakness.   :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 02:29:38 AM
For the benefit of those who may be new to the events related by Rosemary above:
Please take a look at the .pdf documents posted by FuzzyTomcat earlier. They may shed some light on the issue.... you can compare and contrast with Rosemary's version.

And... the claim of COP>17 was not replicated at all. "That replication was subsequently and very articulately denied on Energetic Forum - by both Glen and Harvey Gramm. " That is, the people who actually performed the experiment she is discussing deny that the replication succeeded in proving Rosemary's claim.

"Powercat acknowledges that unity was, in fact breached." Really? Based on what evidence? The paper that was withdrawn by Glen and Harvey, but which was used by you, anyway? The paper that was given, without ANY authorship information attached, to Prof. Mohamed Toriq Kahn at CPUT?

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 02:37:07 AM
And Guys, may I add.

I'm greatly amused when I see the obsessive overuse of the word 'principle' as it's applied by our trolls.  It's like listening to Hitler justifying the mass extinction of the Jews.  Ironic.  Is that the word? Or just 'inappropriate'?  Not sure.  Something like that.  In either case - it's really richly comical. 

Anyway - to continue.  I think I must remind you all about a certain scientific 'truth'.  Experimental evidence cannot be disproved.  Ever.  It can only be replicated - or not.  That's it.  In the very likely event that Poynty Point does not 'replicate' our experimental evidence - then the fault is not ours but his.  If TK doesn't replicate - the same applies.  But in TK's case I don't think, for one moment - that he's even using our circuit.  Thank you Mags for pointing this out.  In any event.  There's been an historical example of this.  A certain Dr Vest championed the DEBUNK of poor Fleischmann and Pons in their cold fusion claims.  And he managed this through experimental evidence.  Notwithstanding which science being science and people being people and somewhat inquisitive - some more adventurous chemists went ahead and TESTED.  We all know the history.  Rossi managed this on heavy duty applications.  Defkalion replicated Rossi's technology.  And now?  Cold fusion is about to be launched.  And what price then our Dr Vest's denial?

Which is just to remind you all that we still need to prove our own claim on those battery to the duration test.  And at the very real cost of getting this thread back on topic I'll try and find the space to answer Poynty's points on this.  You must all forgive the apparent departure of this thread back to it's topic - but I reserve my rights here.  It seems it's the only one I can apply.  LOL

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 20, 2012, 02:44:58 AM
Hey Rose

You should take a break from this. The all days, of this, has got to be draining. Take it easy for a few. Its good for ya.  ;D   Progress doesnt happen this way. Its much better to hang around with friends than enemies, whether they agree with you or not. ;)

Ill take the hits for a while. Especially if your not available. Its probably my doings that led to the decision to let MH out of the cage. Ill be fine. My thread will get the beat down. But I will endure. They can splatter the screen with whatever they want. Its just black and white. But I will continue on, with this project, and the next and the next. Because I like it so much. Nobody can take that away. :) Nobody can stop me.  :P
Though they may try. 8)

Magsy


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 02:54:42 AM
Hey Rose

You should take a break from this. The all days, of this, has got to be draining. Take it easy for a few. Its good for ya.  ;D   Progress doesnt happen this way. Its much better to hang around with friends than enemies, whether they agree with you or not. ;)

Ill take the hits for a while. Especially if your not available. Its probably my doings that led to the decision to let MH out of the cage. Ill be fine. My thread will get the beat down. But I will endure. They can splatter the screen with whatever they want. Its just black and white. But I will continue on, with this project, and the next and the next. Because I like it so much. Nobody can take that away. :) Nobody can stop me.  :P
Though they may try. 8)

Magsy
Hello Magsy.  Thanks for your undertakings here.  I think, indeed, I should leave our trolls to you.  But I really do need to get this back to that battery draw down test.  I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to doing this.  I know, more or less, how it'll pan out.  The pleasure willbe in showing you all these results.

And thanks for everything Mags.  Not sure where you came from or even why I deserve your support.  But I'll take it gladly.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 20, 2012, 02:58:01 AM
 ;) ;D

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 03:11:31 AM
Now... back to issues of substance, with regard to testing.

If I replicate Rosemary's circuit as Fuzzy has shown, using the bank of mosfets and my three 12 V 5 A-H batteries in series.... how will I know that I have achieved OU performance?

Let's say that I take 900 grams of water at 16 degrees C, and, over the course of a hundred minutes, manage to heat it up to boiling, or 104 degrees whichever comes first, and even boil off a few grams. It's pretty clear that my batteries contain  3 batteries x 12 V x 5 A x 60 minutes x 60 seconds of energy, or in "mathcode", 3 x 12 x 5 x 60 x 60 which equals 648000 somethings, which if we got the dimensions right, should be Joules.

Now it's not really fair to expect me to duplicate Rosemary's feat of 25.6 million Joules, is it? I'm not sure, since the battery doesn't supply any power to Rosemary's circuit, what voltage and amp-hour capacity should have to do with anything.....but perhaps there's something I don't understand. How about if I only have to do 3/5 the amount of water? Is that fair? So 3/5 of 900... that is 540 grams of water. Fair?

So, if I raise 540 grams of water by 88 degrees in a hundred minutes, that's (using Rosemary's calculation method since a Joule is a Watt Per Second) 4.18 x 540 x 88 x 100 minutes x 60 seconds, or 19 863 360 "somethings" which she calls Joules. (Never mind that the unit dimensions don't work out; that is the way she did it, you can check, and her "academics" have assured her it's right). Clearly.... if I can just heat that water up to boiling (or 104 degrees, whichever comes first) then I will have replicated Rosemary's claim, since "in that one test alone" I will have used up about 30 times the battery's entire capacity, and there's no way that could happen unless the battery is recharging... RIGHT??

So if I raise to a boil 540 grams of water with Rosemary's circuit and my three 12 V batteries, and then at the end I still measure 12 volts or more on my batteries.... did I manage to replicate, or not? Since, by her reasoning, I've used so much more than the battery could supply, it should be long flat and dead as a doorknob. RIGHT, WILBY?

But according to the math that eatenbyagrue uses, it should only take 4.18 x 540 x 88 = 198 633 Joules (and this time the unit dimensions DO work out, but never mind) or about under a third of my battery's total capacity.

So...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 03:14:48 AM
So...Mags, taking the heat.... in the photos I posted just a while ago... is that Rosemary's circuit version 1, as in the drawing posted by Fuzzy, or not? I realize the load is different, and I only have the single mosfet FOR THE MOMENT... but what else is not to your liking? Maybe your pet Wilby can advise you on that one.

OMG... my shunt and gate drive resistors are 0.3 ohms, instead of 0.25 and 0.5 !! That will obviously void my warranty. Even if they are 5 % tolerance resistors.

Excuse me while I continue ROFLing.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on March 20, 2012, 03:59:05 AM

Excuse me while I continue ROFLing.

You might want to have a doctor check that out. Does that happen all the time? There just may be one of those new fangled medications that will fix ya right up there in a jiffy.
No, No. Excuse me.  Now Shush   Im working.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 03:59:33 AM
Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1    We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2    We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts. 
3    On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4    We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5    We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6    We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7    Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
     This will represent the control setting.

9    We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10  To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
      This will represent the experimental setting

11  We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12  We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply. 
13  The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
      This will represent the control test

14  We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
      This will represent the experiment.

15  We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16  We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17  We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18  We will then rerun those tests
19  This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
      Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 04:08:53 AM
CONDITIONS

Just for general discussion.  Here's what's proposed

.  That the protocols are approved by not less than 2 academics as unequivocal proof of claim
.  That all data is measured continuously through appropriate data loggers
.  That both tests are continuously streamed 'on line' for public verification of results
.  That there is sufficient continuous supervision of these results to ensure that there is no 'tampering'.
.  This in any event should be evident in the data logger and the filming of the experiments
.  That the function generator is not grounded

Add to this if anything occurs to you Poynty.

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 05:01:35 AM
You need to read more to understand that this situation has been going on for years and there are other threads and other forums that you probably haven't even seen, tens of thousands of posts, all leading to one conclusion that this circuit does not work as claimed.

I know you are new here and there is a lot of information to take in so you probably missed this post.

But.. .but... Powercat... that sounds like you don't believe in Rosemary's claim.

I wonder why she says this then:
Quote
Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity was, in fact breached.  And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this.
in post # 1249 in this thread.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 05:10:39 AM
You might want to have a doctor check that out. Does that happen all the time? There just may be one of those new fangled medications that will fix ya right up there in a jiffy.
No, No. Excuse me.  Now Shush   Im working.

Mags

Too busy to answer the direct, polite question, I see. That's nice of you.


Now... I have already achieved overunity with that circuit.

Using Rosemary's oxtail soup example... See that light bulb filament glowing? That's a 25 Watt bulb, there, but it's not very bright, so let's just call it ten Watts. 36 volts from the battery, 0.27 amps carried by the mosfet, ten Watts. Right so far? Now it's been running like that for over four hours, nearly five now, but let's just call it four hours. So... by Rosemary's math example -- approved by her academics, remember -- of the oxtail soup.... that's 36 volts times 0.27 amps times 60 seconds times 60 minutes times 4 hours, or  a staggering 139968 Watts or , since one Watt = one Joule (the terms are interchangeable according to Rosemary) nearly 140 thousand Joules .  That's what I'd have to pay for on my electric bill if I'd used the line. According to Rosemary's Oxtail Soup example, of course.
Now my batteries contain only 36 x 5 x 60 x 60 = 64800 Joules when fully charged. (Oh... am I a tad out there? Never mind.)
"SO. DO THE MATH" (tm Rosemary Ainslie).
In that one test alone, I far exceeded the battery capacity. Therefore... I have achieved OVERUNITY, by the very same means that Rosemary Ainslie has.

Refute me if you dare.

In post # 1165 she computes thusly:
Quote
Let's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
 . Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms.  The source voltage is 220 volts.  The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
 . Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
 . Now I assure you.  While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
 . In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
 . every second
 . for every minute
 . of each of those six hours
 . giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.

And earlier she explained,
Quote
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

And of course there are similar proofs of every step of my own calculation as being done the same way Rosemary does it. And I have been unable to measure any drawdown of the batteries... they are STILL well over 12 volts each. Over 12.7 volts each, in fact... therefore they are still fully charged.

Therefore, and by the same logic that she uses, I have achieved overunity performance already with my OWN circuit... which coincidentally happens to be the same as what Fuzzy posted and claimed was Rosemary's.

THANKS !! I'll be applying for the prizes now, please.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 06:57:22 AM
Here's a repost for Poynty Point as this has again fallen off the page without an answer

Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1    We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2    We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts. 
3    On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4    We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5    We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6    We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7    Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
     This will represent the control setting.

9    We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10  To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
      This will represent the experimental setting

11  We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12  We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply. 
13  The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
      This will represent the control test

14  We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
      This will represent the experiment.

15  We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16  We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17  We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18  We will then rerun those tests
19  This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
      Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 06:58:36 AM
And this on the conditions
CONDITIONS

Just for general discussion.  Here's what's proposed

.  That the protocols are approved by not less than 2 academics as unequivocal proof of claim
.  That all data is measured continuously through appropriate data loggers
.  That both tests are continuously streamed 'on line' for public verification of results
.  That there is sufficient continuous supervision of these results to ensure that there is no 'tampering'.
.  This in any event should be evident in the data logger and the filming of the experiments
.  That the function generator is not grounded

Add to this if anything occurs to you Poynty.

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 07:27:04 AM
And guys - regarding Powercat's post.  In its own way it's gold.  He draws the distinction between what Glen Lettenmaier's test managed and our
own.  Not an inconsiderable difference.  Glen only managed COP>6 (reduced by Harvey Gramm to 4) and we managed COP>17 as detailed in our
Quantum paper.  I think he's trying to imply that our own claim was bogus.  Fortunately our own claim was actually and openly accredited by
SASOL (SA), ABB Research (NC - USA) BP (SA), Power Engineers (SA) (part of the Alstom Group), SPESCOM (SA) and many, many more smaller
firms.  Those listed are also listed on our Stock Exchange.  They gave us their permission - in writing - to append their names as accreditors.
And SASOL went further and offered Professor Gaunt at UCT - a bursary award - to take this study further.  Unfortunately Professor Gaunt
'declined' that offer. 

Which goes to show.  That breach of unity - that MileHigh is rather anxious you all dismiss - out of hand - is also associated with multiple
accreditations from real experts.  Interestingly, our latest claim has nothing at all to do with the battery performance.  It simply concentrates on
the anomalous negative wattage that's measured from the battery.  This implies much that relates to the thesis.  And the focus of that paper is
this.  We describe a series of tests that show different aspects of this anomaly.  And then in the second paper we reconcile the results in terms of
the thesis.  And the thesis proposes nothing that contradicts known physics.  It only suggests that current flow has a dual charge potential
depending on the direction of flow and the charge presented in terms of that justification.

Hope that makes it clearer,
Kindest again
Rosemary

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 07:51:55 AM
And regarding this post and with reference to TK's assumption that because he didn't manage a replication then it obviates Glen Lettenmaier's
tests.  That argument is clearly somewhat flawed.  It only shows us that TK did not have Glen's experimental aptitudes.  And Glen, in turn, does
not have ours.  I think I've highlighted the appropriate.

And there's nothing new here.  TK is STILL not able to replicate our results.  He seems to think that he can thereby negate our own.  Far be it
from me to allege that he's an incompetent or an idiot.  That's likely to be considered libelous.  So.  I'll refrain and allow you all to draw your own
conclusions. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Guys

What a to do.   ::) :o   I don't want to count the number of pages that have now rolled over - courtesy our trolls.  I got a total of 31 notifications
of posting in my email - just yesterday.  The count roughly 5 'for' - 26 'against'.  Not sure if this is right but I think that works out at plus/minus
16% in favour .... and that number 'falling'.   :'( On the whole I think over unity is still the loser.  And my poor efforts along with it.  As MileHigh
points out - it's round about now that I write LOL.  These stats are alarming.  If I was to lay a bet on the possible survival of over unity evidence
- then I'd plumb for a certain 'fail'.

Delighted to see that TK is still taking his own circuit variants seriously.  Else where would he find his justifications to
argue?  And then poor Glen Lettenmaier is trying to communicate something.  God alone knows what?  Clarity is not his strong point.  And
MileHigh - who's got a style of writing that I positively envy - is, unfortunately, now regressing into pure propaganda.  Again, MilesUpInTheAir -
this is for you.  LOL

And at the risk of boring you all with more repetition - there's been so, so much of it - here's the thing.  Our early claim of COP>17 was
replicated - in full public view.  A paper was written on this and roundly rejected by two publications within the IEEE group without going to
review.  That replication was subsequently and very articulately denied on Energetic Forum - by both Glen and Harvey Gramm.  Meanwhile
ownership of that paper was zapped by our Glen - who is nothing if not unscrupulous - and under oath he declared to Scribd authorities - that
this was exclusively his own work. I was not allowed to post the updated TIE version and was threatened with 'banishment' - God forbid - if I
persisted with this claim that I had any part of that paper.  I'm like the mother in the Bible who preferred to let the baby be taken away from her
than allow it to be cut in half and thereby killed.  Better something than nothing.   :'(

But confusion ABOUNDS - as it's said.  Glen Lettenmaier claims he NEVER replicated anything at all.  Harvey helped him out by insisting that it
can't be a replication.  Glen only managed COP>4.  Rosemary managed COP>17.  Therefore, confusingly, the only conclusion to draw from this is
that Glen actually and independently orchestrated his own 'discovery'.  And in and amongst all these quibbles and niceties - the fact that there
was ever a breach of unity at all - was conveniently forgotten.  Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity
was, in fact breached.  And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this.  All along?  And here again I've just seen how urgently MileHigh has denied this.
And so it goes. 

Round and round the mulberry bush. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited a possesive pronoun.  Ever my weakness.   :o

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 08:34:25 AM
And finally, hopefully the last post for the morning and for eatenbyagrue

I'm not sure how to tell you this - as I really do not want to antagonise you in any way - but here's the thing - now approved by a power
engineering expert. It is required to incorporate the entire test period to evaluate the joules dissipated on that circuit.  So.  Indeed.  If it takes
4.18 joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade - then that's the rate of applied power over the entire test period.  Roughly 66
degrees above ambient  over 90 minutes for 60 seconds PER minute for each gram of those 900 grams.  Comes to (I
think) a total of 21 443 400 joules.  Just that.  Even before we take it to boil.  At which point we've exhausted the capacity of all five batteries.
The product over time is  required.  So guys.  That's how our utility suppliers justify their bill when we presume to make oxtail soup.  I'm not
about to get into an argument about this. For those of you who still doubt it then phone your local universities or your engineers that work for
your utility suppliers.  Our poor TK is apparently anxious to restructure our standard measurement protocols.
 
Which also means that my previous analysis was 'on the button'.  Again.  Don't argue this here.  PLEASE.  It's dominated far too many pages.
Just check it out with your own academic sources.  You'll find that academics are highly approachable.  They'll explain all this.  Which also means
that my previous claim is on the money - albeit that it's not part of our presentation in our paper. It simply proves that
our batteries have long outperformed their watt hour rating.  In that test alone it's exceeded. And they're still at 12 volts each - precisely the
voltage measured when we first took delivery of them. And as for evolvingape's analysis.  The less said the better.  But do not, please, any of
you, lose sight of those multiple protests by TK that has  dominated this thread in so many posts and over so many pages.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Subject to his permission I'll copy that email.  But I'm not sure that he'll want his name associated with this thread.  That'll be his choice.
I fondly anticipate another plus/minus six pages of protest as Glen Lettenmaier and TK continue with their howls of protest.  But please scroll
past this.  If required I'll just repost these morning posts here.

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 20, 2012, 08:59:05 AM
Hi members and guests,

I was advised to add the following PROOF in support of my defense from the unfounded slanderous allegations from Rosemary of THEFT of her "THESIS" technology and discovery.

This does relate to the accusation of stealing her technology for a verification of her THESIS ( BS ) ...... but for me it was to try and verify the Quantum 2002 article ( quantum_october_2002.pdf )  COP>17  "CLAIM" .  ( noted as self written by Rosemary Ainslie )

Please Find Attached -  ( Request_for_return_due_to_misleading_intent.pdf )

100% verifiable full e-mail correspondence to and from Tektronix with a "END" demand from them for Rosemary to modify her misrepresentation of many facts in her postings at Energetic Forum HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, also including the immediate request for return of the loaned oscilloscope equipment I had in my possession and the total disconnect from any other equipment loans to the Open Source community to distance Tektronix from this verification of Rosemary Ainslie's claims.

PARTIAL QUOTE .........

Quote

Yesterday, I received a request from Rosemary to read the COP>17 blog. I wanted to let you know that I
requested she remove some content as it was misleading in regards to the intent of the instrument loan.
Following was my exact request:
- - - - - - -
I did finally read the latest postings. Now that I have read them, I ask that you remove the following references
from your posting:

"And that thesis was explicitly referenced in the early chapters of my association with Tektronix.
That was the basis of our use of the equipment. Always a specific condition of use. Never a loan. In
fact we were early advised never to use the term. it did not sit well with Tektronix. This condition
was my assurance to them that all the information would be collated and be made available to the
public to use in any way they chose - strictly in line with good open source tradition. That is also not
open to dispute.
May I ask you therefore, Glen, if there is any variation to this agreement that you have negotiated
with Tektronix? I am satisfied that it was Aaron's understanding that nothing was to be withheld from
the public. And I am certain that he would not do so. Are you, on the contrary, withholding access to
your data? Are you now uncovering information that you are withholding not only from the public but
from the authors in this collaboration? And do you consider that this is your right to do so? It hardly
seems to be in support of Open Source interests nor in the spirit in which you accessed that
equipment through Tektronix's good offices, in the first instance. And is Harvey and Ashtweth aware
of this? And both on record to secure open source interests?"


And...

"I suggest, with the utmost respect, that you are somehow negotiating an ownership and a sole right
to this experiment to the entire advantage of yourself and, possibly Harvey and Ashtweth. Again. I
would be glad to hear that this is entirely wrong. If I do not hear from you I will ask Tektronix to
clarify this."
These references make it appear that Tektronix was doing more than loaning a piece of
equipment. My purpose with the loan was to support a request I received from the marketing team
in Europe. The Europe team was hoping your team's application of the instrument in support of the
over-unity research would make a possible PR piece. But as you are aware, the research is really,
really too complicated for a simple PR piece. I ask again that you please remove these references.

- - - - -
I provide this to you to ensure you are aware of what
the exact terms of the loan was...as you can see there we no real strings attached. Again, I provide this just for
your understanding and not be used against Rosemary.
In my humble opinion, I think she is going through a phase of depression right now.
Hope everything settles out well. When that happens, let me know...it was amazing to watch a dispersed group
of individuals rallying together to achieve something with nothing more than sheer passion to drive them all.



 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 20, 2012, 09:10:21 AM
Quote
It is required to incorporate the entire test period to evaluate the joules dissipated on that circuit.  So.  Indeed.  If it takes 4.18 joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade - then that's the rate of applied power over the entire test period.  Roughly 66 degrees above ambient over 90 minutes for 60 seconds PER minute for each gram of those 900 grams.  Comes to (I think) a total of 21 443 400 joules.  Just that.  Even before we take it to boil.  At which point we've exhausted the capacity of all five batteries.  The product over time is required.  So guys.  That's how our utility suppliers justify their bill when we presume to make oxtail soup.  I'm not about to get into an argument about this. For those of you who still doubt it then phone your local universities or your engineers that work for your utility suppliers. Our poor TK is apparently anxious to restructure our standard measurement protocols.

It takes 4.18 Joules/gram x 900 grams = 3762 Joules to raise 900 grams of water by one degree Celsius.

Therefore if we want to raise 900 grams of water by 66 degrees we multiply 3762 x 66 = 248292 Joules.

This calculation is independent of the time dimension.

This is a prime example of the nonsensical idiocy associated with Rosemary's claim.  If you want to take that as an indicator and make some inferences, then you can infer that the capacitor test will show that her circuit consumes power and will drain the batteries flat.

Rosemary still hasn't commented on the capacitor test because she is mortally afraid of doing it.

Like I have already stated, this foolishness has simply gone on too long and the days are numbered for Rosie's claim.  It's just too much.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 10:27:46 AM
It takes 4.18 Joules/gram x 900 grams = 3762 Joules to raise 900 grams of water by one degree Celsius.

Therefore if we want to raise 900 grams of water by 66 degrees we multiply 3762 x 66 = 248292 Joules.

This calculation is independent of the time dimension.

This is a prime example of the nonsensical idiocy associated with Rosemary's claim.  If you want to take that as an indicator and make some
inferences, then you can infer that the capacitor test will show that her circuit consumes power and will drain the batteries flat.

Indeed MileHigh your number is correct.  But we ran this part of the test for a period of slightly more than 90 minutes of that entire test period.
Are you proposing that no further energy was put into that water?  Did the applied energy somehow stop at 66 degrees above ambient?  At
roughly 5 minutes after the start of that test period?  Golly.  Are you proposing that we can take the oxtail soup to boil and then simply switch off
the stove for the duration that we're cooking it?  That would be nice.  We'd pay far less to our utility suppliers.  It did not take 90 minutes to get
900 grams of water to 66 degrees above ambient.  It took no time at all.  The resistor was already at 260 degrees or thereby - and climbing -
before it was immersed in that water.

Here's what I know.  I can turn down the heat - reduce the current - to sustain the 'boil' in that oxtail soup.  But I would also need to put a lid on
that pot - or it will stop boiling at a reduced current flow.  We did not apply that 'lid'.  Nor did we turn down our current flow.  It was not altered
at all.  It steamed for the duration - bar only for those early few moments while the heat from the element dispersed into the water.  When it was
taken to 'boil' it took a further 10 minutes - and then only was the current turned off - the pot disconnected.

And this test was conducted and reported on - here on this forum - in real time.

And you have NOT yet answered the questions related to Glen Lettenmaier's REPLICATION.  Are you also proposing that that was an IDLE CLAIM?
Is this what you're warning everyone to desist from 'believing'?  That no-one to date - has ever managed to exceed unity?  If so, then tell Glen
to remove his paper from Scribd.  Because that's what that paper is stating.  And that way I can post the corrected paper on my own Scribd file.
 
Regards,
Rosie Pose

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 20, 2012, 11:17:53 AM
Hi members and guests,

It appears Rosemary is fishing again and making slanderous unfounded claims against me , this has be hashed over four (4) times in different threads in
different forums, it's getting old just like the FRAUDULENT claim on a COP greater than INFINITY ........ or ....... COP>INFINITY .

For your references and for the libel claim -

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746)


I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development"  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment) channel on
the
January 9, 2010  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df) 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that
many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the
recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the
Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in   Test #13    (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E313%5E_11-26-09.zip) which was used in the IEEE submittal
 Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems  (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems) the team including yourself did, and
in   Test #22  (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E322%5E_02-05-10.zip) but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members
and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid
or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has
a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately
for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054
these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting
or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to
record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need
to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a   Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers  (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/psdetails.lotr?ct=PS&cs=psu&ci=13394&lc=EN) from Tektronix or some other method to
verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the
preferred mode of operation.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 20, 2012, 11:27:47 AM
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315956/#msg315956      Reply #1224 on: March 19, 2012, 12:40:13 AM

Rosemary ..... your saying your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publications that the content are 100% TRUE and Factual.

YES   or   NO !!!

This is being recorded as your statement of fact, any thing other than a yes or no 24 Hrs from this posting if not answered, will be a "NO" and recorded as such !!

We established "CUT OFF" dates for your NERD RAT published device schematics based on established 12 MARCH 2011 "VIDEO" evidence .....

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315729/#msg315729      Reply #1117 on: March 17, 2012, 12:45:43 AM

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


YOUR 24 HOURS ARE UP ............. THERE WILL BE A FINAL STATEMENT ON THIS SUBJECT TO COME !!


 :P

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
Guys I must apologise for Glen Lettenmaier

He is that anxious that you never read his posts that he ensures they all 'fall off the page'.  It's an irritating technique because it also obliges
the rest of us to carefully edit the line length of each post - to get it back into perspective.  He is entirely unable to post an original opinion -
relying as he does on other's writing to fill up as much space as possible.  I am afraid he is rather committed to stealing this entire technology
with whatever methods he can manage.  And they're limited to this 'cut and paste' process that renders this thread unreadable.

Nor has he any idea of how to apply any kind of professional restraint.  Nor does he know how to argue.  He can only shout - in multi colour. 
For some reason he's inordinately proud of this ability.  I am not entirely sure of his emotional age.  But from the appearances I would not be
inclined to peg this too high.

Meanwhile - I have learned a bitter lesson.  Which is that it is better not to trust the presentations of members of these forums.  Would that I
had realised this sooner.  It is a matter of abiding shame that I ever associated mine and a co-author's good name with his.

Regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
AGAIN
Here's a repost for Poynty Point as this has again fallen off the page without an answer

Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1    We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2    We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts. 
3    On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4    We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5    We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6    We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7    Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
     This will represent the control setting.

9    We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10  To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
      This will represent the experimental setting

11  We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12  We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply. 
13  The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
      This will represent the control test

14  We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
      This will represent the experiment.

15  We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16  We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17  We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18  We will then rerun those tests
19  This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
      Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
And this on the conditions
CONDITIONS

Just for general discussion.  Here's what's proposed

.  That the protocols are approved by not less than 2 academics as unequivocal proof of claim
.  That all data is measured continuously through appropriate data loggers
.  That both tests are continuously streamed 'on line' for public verification of results
.  That there is sufficient continuous supervision of these results to ensure that there is no 'tampering'.
.  This in any event should be evident in the data logger and the filming of the experiments
.  That the function generator is not grounded

Add to this if anything occurs to you Poynty.

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 20, 2012, 01:24:13 PM
Here's a repost for Poynty Point as this has again fallen off the page without an answer

Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1    We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2    We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts. 
3    On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4    We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5    We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6    We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7    Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
     This will represent the control setting.

9    We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10  To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
      This will represent the experimental setting

11  We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12  We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply. 
13  The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
      This will represent the control test

14  We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
      This will represent the experiment.

15  We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16  We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17  We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18  We will then rerun those tests
19  This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
      Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rosemary,

Some of the steps in 1-14 are unclear to me as to process and purpose.

One thing I must state again as I'm not sure if I've made this clear enough yet:

1) The number and type of batteries for both the control and experimental apparatus must be the same.

2) The same resistor element (type, value, part number) must be used for both the control and experimental apparatus.

I think your steps 1-14 satisfy 1), but I can't say with certainty that they satisfy 2).

Are both 1) and 2) satisfied by your points 1-14?

And I need to add a 3rd.

3) Both the control and experimental apparatus must utilize a method of temperature monitoring that ensures any hot or cold spots on the resistor element are averaged out. One method of doing this is to immerse the elements in a container of liquid (say one litre of antifreeze) that will not boil nor evaporate much. Meanwhile the liquid is stirred occasionally and continuously measured with a probe immersed in the liquid.

.99

ETA 3)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 01:32:35 PM
One thing I must state again as I'm not sure if I've made this clear enough yet:

1) The number and type of batteries for both the control and experimental apparatus must be the same.
Yes.  I agree.
2) The same resistor element (type, value, part number) must be used for both the control and experimental apparatus.
Yes.  I agree.
I think your steps 1-14 satisfy 1), but I can't say with certainty that they satisfy 2).
I think so.
Are both 1) and 2) satisfied by your points 1-14?
Yes.


Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 01:37:28 PM
I see you've been editing.

3) Both the control and experimental apparatus must utilize a method of temperature monitoring that ensures any hot or cold spots on the resistor element are averaged out. One method of doing this is to immerse the elements in a container of liquid (say one litre of antifreeze) that will not boil nor evaporate much. Meanwhile the liquid is stirred occasionally and continuously measured with a probe immersed in the liquid.

What water?  I have no intention of using water.  And your equivalent resistor on the control is nonsense.  This is precisely why it's required that we use an expert to adjudicate the test protocols.  I'm still looking for a couple.  Until these are to hand this matter can be deferred.   I'm afraid that even you will have to defer to their rulings.

Kindest regards Poynty Point
Rosie Pose

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 20, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
Rosemary,

I'll add a 4th condition:

4) For the second run when the batteries are swapped control for experimental apparatus, the resistor elements are also swapped, control for experimental apparatus. (assuming of course that 2) is agreed to and satisfied).
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 20, 2012, 03:16:40 PM
Guys

 Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity was, in fact breached.  And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this.  All along?  And here again I've just seen how urgently MileHigh has denied this.  And so it goes. 

Round and round the mulberry bush. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited a possesive pronoun.  Ever my weakness.   :o
You can't help twisting what  people say or how they say it , I note that you did not include a link to my post where I said this.

You keep going on about Glenn and his replication, how long ago was this now ?

In all those years Glenn is the only one that (you say) matched your claim of excess energy,
he completely denies it, yet you try and hold him up as a shining example of your work,
after all this time you have no one else ?

You are now beginning to infer that I support your claim in some way,
I do not support your claim the evidence is overwhelming for many years that you do not have any excess energy.

Your persistence to carry on claiming you do is damaging this community, there are many good threads on here where people work together to develop new ideas and try to work towards a free energy device that can be replicated by most people, the large majority of them do not make ridiculous claims that can't be replicated.

Rosemary on the other hand does not want to understand why after all these years they are no successful replications of her excess energy claim.

This forum is here to discover the truth about free energy and not support people that lie and hide from the facts.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 03:32:17 PM
Powercat, thank you for clearing that up and pointing out another of Rosemary's lies.

Quote
Fortunately our own claim was actually and openly accredited by
SASOL (SA), ABB Research (NC - USA) BP (SA), Power Engineers (SA) (part of the Alstom Group), SPESCOM (SA) and many, many more smaller
firms.  Those listed are also listed on our Stock Exchange.  They gave us their permission - in writing - to append their names as accreditors.
And SASOL went further and offered Professor Gaunt at UCT - a bursary award - to take this study further.  Unfortunately Professor Gaunt
'declined' that offer. 

None of these companies have ever heard of you, Rosemary, and you have never shown any documentation of this claimed "accreditation". Let's see this document -- in writing-- allowing you to use the names of any of these companies as "accreditors". Several years ago, several of these companies were contacted and asked about you... and nobody remembers you or your device or any endorsement or "accreditation".

Let's see the documents, Rosemary. PROVE YOUR CLAIMS of accreditation by showing the reports and documents. You've made these claims before... but you've NEVER provided a trace of documentation of them.

And why don't you mention your much more recent contacts with Professor Kahn, and your work in the broom closet at CPUT? At least Kahn remembers you.

And when did a University Professor ever turn down an offer of a grant?

Now... as to my replication. I still claim AND ON THE SAME QUALITY OF EVIDENCE AS ROSEMARY that my circuit, running overnight now, for over 10 hours.... has, according to my calculations, exceeded the battery capacity by a large amount, and is still running.

If Rosemary can base her claim on false math and improper experimentation and reporting (note how the description has changed over the past week)..... THEN SO CAN I.

Oh, by the way.... My circuit has been checked and accredited by WDP, the University of Austin at Bear Creek, and Professor Doctor von Quatlu at the Institute for Proper Study. Unfortunately their endorsements are buried under a pile of crap, and you can't expect an old feeble man like me actually to produce them for verification, can you.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 03:45:18 PM
I'd still like to know what the objection is to MY proposed test. Since Rosemary doesn't understand why liquid immersion is important... and we know how creatively she calculates (another example has just been posted) and measures things.... a test that needs NO calculation or measurement would seem to be less contentious.

Take six identical batteries and charge them all up using an automatic charger. Randomly select three and set them aside. Take the other three and hook it up to Rosemary's circuit, and let it heat a resistor to 260 degrees or boil water/antifreeze, or run a vibrator, I don't care, as long as Rosemary can say that "it's working properly". Let it run for a day or two like that, undisturbed. Then take that battery set which has been running the circuit for a couple of days and just hook it up to a simple  light bulb load -- like 3  12-v automotive brake light bulbs in series. Do the same with the three charged batteries that were set aside. Watch and see which light bulbs dim first. Record on time-lapse video for the world to see. Repeat the test three times just to be sure, recharging and then randomly selecting three batteries to set aside and three to run, each time.

This test will take longer than MileHigh's excellent capacitor test, but at least ALL the participants should be able to UNDERSTAND what is happening and the meaning of it, unlike the cap test.
And it will not provide as much scientific data as .99's test.... but again, my proposed test is unambiguous and requires no measurement other than the most basic kind. Which bulb is still glowing, which one went dark first.

What is wrong with my proposed test? ... which, IIRC, was actually first proposed by Rosemary's former collaborator Harvey.

Oh... and of course it can't be hooked DIRECTLY to a FG. I suggest using a simple series capacitor... which will still allow the FG's signal to pass unimpeded and switch the mosfets but will NOT allow the DC path, or the FG, to charge the batteries. There are also other ways to stop the FG from being able to charge the batteries but this is the simplest. The circuit can also be examined WITH and WITHOUT a series cap in the FG circuit, to see the contribution (if any) of the FG to the charging.

Even better would be if she used the 555 timer circuit that was so important and critical in her first, COP> 17 circuit claim. I mean, after all.... we KNOW that one works properly.... don't we. In fact, ANY of the early collaborator's 555 timer circuits could be used, even the ones that fixed her original inverted duty cycle.

This test is SO SIMPLE that ANYONE with batteries, mosfets, resistors, and light bulbs can perform it, and as ALWAYS, I encourage anyone with doubts to TEST FOR YOURSELVES.

Don't take my word for anything. Do your own math, check it twice, justify it with references, draw your own conclusions.

How's that for a rabid debunker's attempt at suppression of a new important techology?
Shouldn't a paid suppressor be saying "NO, it's all a waste of time, you CAN'T properly test this circuit because you don't know what you're doing and it's impossible anyway. Shut Rosemary UP, Ban Her, pay no attention to her at all. Don't buy any mosfets, especially not the IRFPG50 (or the 2sk1548, especially) because it's a waste of money. Just go back to your always-proven-to-work Steorn motors and your Rossi reactors, because Rosemary's circuit cannot possibly work".

But I'm not really saying that, am I?

I'm saying to Rosemary: Prove your assertions with correct calculations and chain of reasoning. Demonstrate your claims by building and testing your device in public by an actual TEST, not some hand-waving demonstration. Other builders should also BUILD AND TEST for themselves to confirm what is learned from the public displays. And Rosemary should stop lying about what other people say or do or think.

Meanwhile, I fully endorse the tests suggested by MileHigh and .99--- as long as they can agree to Rosemary's conditions, that is.

"Kill two birds with one stone", eh, Rosemary? Why not kill three or four while you're at it... I'm not the only "bird" objecting to your nonsense.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 04:23:52 PM
Hello powercat

Let me see if I can clarify this - as you seem to be having some difficulties.  Your original statement is here.
For the three readers and anyone else, this is a classic statement from Rosemary where  she twists the truth, what I have said in the past and it is on record,is that no one on this forum has ever successfully replicated Rosemary's claim, (that's right the claim);
From where I sit you're unequivocally stating that no-one has replicated our claim?  Is that right?  Well.  Here's the puzzle.  Glen Lettenmaier has published our paper on his scribd account where he categorically states that he has replicated our claim.  Here's the link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)  And here's a direct transcript from that paper.

The opening paragraph stipulates that ...
The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonating
frequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Results
indicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an
alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...
The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest)
published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical
magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the
experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate
the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was
considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating
to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.

From where I sit that represents an unequivocal endorsement by Glen Lettenmaier himself.  Unless he's misrepresenting the facts.  I no longer know what his stance is on this.  But if he now denies that he replicated then common decency requires that he withdraw that Scribd publication. Perhaps you can clarify your or his position on this.  I don't think you can accuse me of misrepresenting the facts.  I'm representing nothing.  This is Glen Lettenmaier's representation of the facts.  Nothing whatsoever to do with me.  Therefore I think it's a bit harsh to accuse me of twisting the facts.  These are the facts.

Regards,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 04:49:30 PM
Now.  Let's see if I can deal with this post of yours.  They're coming fast and furious. 

You can't help twisting what  people say or how they say it , I note that you did not include a link to my post where I said this.
Not sure who's twisting here powercat.  I don't think it's me. What's throwing you is that the evidence is there.  Glen claims to have replicated.  It's there in that paper. It not only carries his name as a collaborator - but it's published on his own Scribd account.
You keep going on about Glenn and his replication, how long ago was this now?
Not sure that it's me that goes on about this.  I only use this to refute your own and TK's repeated claims that there has never been a replication.  Which actually means that I reference this possibly as often as you lot deny this.  I think that's fair?  Surely?  Or would you prefer it that I let well enough alone and allow you all to misrepresent this?  Just let all our trolls repeatedly advise all our readers that there never has been a replication?  I'm not sure that would be in the best interests of our technology or of over unity.  And nor do I know if it matters if this happened one year ago or ten.  It happened.  It's a part of history.  And it takes more skills than you and TK can bring to the table to rewrite history.
In all those years Glenn is the only one that (you say) matched your claim of excess energy,
Not actually.  You should do an internet search.  I think there are as many that claim a replication of that waveform as those that don't.  The only one who patently could not get that oscillation is our TK.  But he denies this.  It's just he never showed us an example of it.  Perhaps he'll oblige us - one day.
he (GLEN) completely denies it,
Glen does NOT deny it.  Again.  Refer to the scribd publication link above.
yet you try and hold him up as a shining example of your work,
after all this time you have no one else?
Not at all.  The minute Glen withdraws his scribd publication then I'll again claim ownership of that paper.  Then I'll go on record as having a full on replication of our earlier test.  Then if Glen objects - he can sue me.  He knows how to reach me.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 04:50:03 PM
You are now beginning to infer that I support your claim in some way,
Not at all.  I'm entirely satisfied that you have NEVER supported our evidence let alone the replication.  Golly.
I do not support your claim the evidence is overwhelming for many years that you do not have any excess energy.
on a purely personal level - I'd be rather sorry if you ever did support our evidence.  It would diminish it somehow - in a way that's rather difficult to explain.  And as for this
Your persistence to carry on claiming you do is damaging this community, there are many good threads on here where people work together to develop new ideas and try to work towards a free energy device that can be replicated by most people, the large majority of them do not make ridiculous claims that can't be replicated.
I'm afraid that I am not responsible for the contentions that are evoked by our claim.  I believe it's our trolls who are responsible.  I suppose it's the truth that if we withdrew our claim then there would be no further contentions.  But we'd need to then ignore experimental evidence and that's not consistent with good science.
This forum is here to discover the truth about free energy and not support people that lie and hide from the facts.
Which is difficult to understand.  I believe we have some rather telling evidence in support of over unity.  Even if you, personally, discount our latest tests - you've still got Glen's replication.  That surely counts for something?
 
 Regards,
 Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
Let me state my position clearly.

1. Rosemary Ainslie over the years has claimed that at least 4 (slightly) different circuits using ordinary MOSFETS switched in a manner detailed in the MOSFET's data sheet.... all produce overunity performance, from COP>17 (her early claim) to COP = INFINITY in her latest claim, along with battery recharging and consuming NO power from the batteries.

2. The data and evidence that she has provided are inadequate to support such a grand claim.

3. The data and evidence that she has provided... the RAW DATA (most of it) ... CAN INDEED be duplicated, on demand, both in standard circuit model simulations as .99 and others have shown, and in real circuitry, as FuzzyTomcat and others have shown, including myself. These reports have been published, posted, referenced out the wazoo.

4. Rosemary has shown repeatedly that she does not understand basic arithmetic, algebra, nor does she have a grasp of the basic concepts of the calculus. She consistently and constantly confuses units of energy and power, showing that she does not understand the difference ("`1 Watt = 1 Joule, the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE" she says).

5. The conclusion that Ainslie's circuits perform in any manner other than the perfectly ordinary, is a result of her incorrect interpretation of the raw data, including but not limited to arithmetic errors, algebra errors, and improper data collection. When the data AS SHE PRESENTS IT is analyzed correctly, no indication of any "overunity" or battery charging performance due to her circuit can be found. This part of the story has been "replicated" over and over, by everyone with the knowledge and skill and apparatus to TEST FOR THEMSELVES.

6. No credible replication of her overunity claim exists, anywhere.

7. The present discussion illustrates each of my points above, in spades.


@eatenbyagrue: You no doubt have gotten caught up a little bit by now. I ask you therefore, Counselor: have you been able to find anything in what I've said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

Have you been able to find anything that Rosemary has said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

(edited for typos and grammar)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 20, 2012, 05:22:18 PM
Hello powercat

Let me see if I can clarify this - as you seem to be having some difficulties.  Your original statement is here.From where I sit you're unequivocally stating that no-one has replicated our claim?  Is that right?  Well.  Here's the puzzle.  Glen Lettenmaier has published our paper on his scribd account where he categorically states that he has replicated our claim.  Here's the link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)  And here's a direct transcript from that paper.


Regards,
Rosie Pose.

How many times Rosemary, time for a repost    @Fuzzy Rosemary is still not understanding you.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315246/#msg315246)

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"


May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29)
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 05:41:53 PM
Quote
The only one who patently could not get that oscillation is our TK.  But he denies this.  It's just he never showed us an example of it.  Perhaps he'll oblige us - one day.

Again, Ainslie lies.

In her first circuit, the "random aperiodic hartley oscillations" were as a result of a combination of poor circuit construction, groundloops, but mostly "oscilloscope abuse", back when she didn't know the first thing about quantitative use of the oscilloscope, and thought it was cool to display an uninterpretable comb with aliasing and false triggering instead of an actual trace.
In addition, her 555 timer circuit abused the timer by driving it and powering it incorrectly, so it put out a distorted signal to her mosfet gate.

The oscillations in the present circuit(s) are, as OTHER PEOPLE than I have explained, a result of feedback and groundloops, and even though my circuit may be a bit different, the oscillations are the same and come from the same cause. Her circuit will perform the same WITH OR WITHOUT these magic oscillations, I conjecture. PROVE ME WRONG, please.

(ETA: Actually, in the first circuit, I think the mosfet  could be driven to saturation by the oscillations superposed on the gate signal and so could have simply acted like a small value resistor in a straight DC circuit. )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIALHiRL4PY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIALHiRL4PY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcG1dAsrdc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcG1dAsrdc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mRVej2cE_A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mRVej2cE_A)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY)
(from 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRYEdJB6bVg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRYEdJB6bVg)
(from last week)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 05:54:27 PM
Hello powercat

Let me see if I can clarify this - as you seem to be having some difficulties.  .....
Regards,
Rosie Pose.

Everybody seems to be having some difficulties, Rosemary.... everyone but you. You have no difficulties...

You are indeed the Red Queen in your own Wonderland, where words mean whatever you want them to mean and you already know everything there is to know about what happens in your Wonderland.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 05:59:41 PM
My dear Powercat

I am very well aware of Glen's rather confusing stand on this. AGAIN.  If he no longer supports the evidence then he needs must withdraw that scribd publication.  He cannot both deny a replication and claim it.  That is not only confusing - but it is diametrically opposed to the principles that have been established by the venerable process related to publication.  This requires that the minute there is evidence that a reported claim is found to be incorrect - then the correct procedure is to withdraw that publication and acknowledge the error.  Glen Lettenmaier has deleted his previous denials from his thread at Energetic Forum.  And he has NOT withdrawn his paper.  I am actively encouraging him to do so.  Then there will be no further ambiguity.  How more plainly can I put this?

How many times Rosemary, time for a repost    @Fuzzy Rosemary is still not understanding you.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315246/#msg315246)

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"


May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29)
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.


From where I sit this is a TOTAL DENIAL OF A REPLICATION.  Then I ask you.  Why has he NOT withdrawn that Scribd publication?  One would expect a certain amount of consistency.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 20, 2012, 06:32:25 PM
Rosemary,

Your such a low life always distracting the thread about me !!

Grow up ! This thread is about you and your fraudulent COP greater than INFINITY ..... COP>INFINITY.

THE THREAD IS " ANOTHER SMALL BREAKTHROUGH ON OUR NERD TECHNOLOGY" ....... IT"S ABOUT A "THESIS" !!!!! NOT A DEVICE !!!!! NOT ABOUT ME !!!!

GET OVER IT YOU PITIFUL EXCUSE FOR A LIAR !!!

I CAN"T WAIT FOR MY ATTORNEY TO CLIMB UP YOU SKINNY ASS WITH A HUGE LIBEL LAWSUIT AND GIVES YOU WHAT YOU DESERVE !!!! 

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 20, 2012, 07:21:00 PM
Rosemary ....

I can't say how many times you have said my "COMPLETE NAME" over and over a gain ....

GLEN LETTENMAIER, GLEN LETTENMAIER, GLEN LETTENMAIER ....... like a friggen broken record !!!!

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT YOU ROSEMARY AINSLIE !!!  YOU KNOW YOUR FRAUDULENT COP greater than INFINITY .......... COP>INFINITY ...... "THESIS" or "DEVICE" !!!!!

YOU, ROSEMARY AINSLIE !!! AND WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE NOW !!!!


"Rosie Posie Greetings From South Africa"

http://www.modvid.com/play/Assorted_Images/Greetings_From_South_Africa


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 09:00:18 PM
Rosemary,

I CAN"T WAIT FOR MY ATTORNEY TO CLIMB UP YOU SKINNY ASS WITH A HUGE LIBEL LAWSUIT AND GIVES YOU WHAT YOU DESERVE !!!! 


As TK puts it 'BRING IT ON'.  Unlike him I mean it.  It would suit my purposes ideally.  On so many levels.  There is nothing I'd enjoy more.  And I'll happily supply your attorney with an address to serve those papers.  No need to wait.  I'll expect those papers within the next few days.  And I'll PM you an address for serving them.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 09:27:13 PM

 Just remember this, Rosemary : You are going to have to PROVE your contentions -- all of them -- in a court of law, if you really decide to pursue this.
 
 25.6 million Joules, over 4200 continuous Watts, into 900 ml water in 100 minutes. Are you quite sure that's the truth? I think the mathematics skills of a college educated lawyer-judge will likely trump yours, especially when the expert witnesses are called in to testify.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 20, 2012, 09:55:31 PM
As TK puts it 'BRING IT ON'.  Unlike him I mean it.  It would suit my purposes ideally.  On so many levels.  There is nothing I'd enjoy more.  And I'll happily supply your attorney with an address to serve those papers.  No need to wait.  I'll expect those papers within the next few days.  And I'll PM you an address for serving them.

Rosemary,

Don't bother sending me anything I've have enough, including your address for year.

I must thank you Rosemary, for all the slanderous remarks from you that appear in one location, it made it much easier to compile everything with the evidence in the "PDF's" that were posted in my defense, for your continued bashing of myself and others. I cannot believe the downloads of these PDF documents of 100% verifiable facts and truth in MY defense. Your a joke to put it mildly.

This may be a "CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT" with many parties involved, filed in Cape Town, South Africa.

This will have to be done all with "VIDEO" depositions from those involved with the suit ( for court viewing only ) plus experts, in each a field of the libel dispute against you.

Like I said earlier you have sealed your own fate with your posts here that cannot be changed by you in a quick EDIT.

OH .... AND YOU "BROUGHT THIS ON" NOT ME !!!! 

BUT THIS IS ALL ABOUT "YOU" !!!!


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 21, 2012, 01:37:42 AM
Rosemary ....

I can't say how many times you have said my "COMPLETE NAME" over and over a gain ....

GLEN LETTENMAIER, GLEN LETTENMAIER, GLEN LETTENMAIER ....... like a friggen broken record !!!!

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT YOU ROSEMARY AINSLIE !!!  YOU KNOW YOUR FRAUDULENT COP greater than INFINITY .......... COP>INFINITY ...... "THESIS" or "DEVICE" !!!!!

YOU, ROSEMARY AINSLIE !!! AND WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE NOW !!!!


"Rosie Posie Greetings From South Africa"

http://www.modvid.com/play/Assorted_Images/Greetings_From_South_Africa (http://www.modvid.com/play/Assorted_Images/Greetings_From_South_Africa)


 :P

What is wrong with you, man?  All that video shows is a nice lady saying hello.  You are coming off like a real jerk.

You do not agree with her findings, we get it.  Trust me, we all get it.  Jesus, go do something else now.  Don't you have anything else to do with your life other than fixating on some technology you do not believe in.  Go do your thing and let Rosemary do hers.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 04:13:39 AM
Hello guys,

I've just seen this post by TK.  He seems to think that I lack either the resources or the motivations to address these questions in a Court of Law.  For the record.  I do not know that there is ever any value in resolving anything at all this way. In fact I'm not sure that either party is ever satisfied.  On the face of it one expects Justice to be done.  But the outcome from any Court ruling is always subject to vagaries - that it would take a really brave punter to put money on which side the rulings are likely to fall.  However.  It would be required - at some stage - that our experimental evidence is brought to the table.  I would then be obliged to demonstrate the claim - either COP>17, COP>4 or - God forbid - COP INFINITY.  I would certainly put money on it that any such public demonstration would likely rivet the attention of some very interested parties who may not be happy with this proof.  And by the same token it would more than likely come to the attention of the wider public that any such claim even exists.   That the potential exists where one could actually decouple from the stranglehold of our utility suppliers.  Frankly I would welcome that publicity.  I suspect it would achieve considerably more than I've managed on these forums.   

So.  When TK writes this - then INDEED...
Just remember this, Rosemary : You are going to have to PROVE your contentions -- all of them -- in a court of law, if you really decide to pursue this.
 
 25.6 million Joules, over 4200 continuous Watts, into 900 ml water in 100 minutes. Are you quite sure that's the truth? I think the mathematics skills of a college educated lawyer-judge will likely trump yours, especially when the expert witnesses are called in to testify.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Not only would I be happy to defend this action - I would welcome it.  Actually I'm not rich.  But I've set aside a little bit of money to see this kind of action through - either as a claimant or defendant.  And I suspect that this would certainly result in exactly the opportunity that is denied on these forums.  Here no-one is prepared to be fully accountable.  But in Court one one can only be fully accountable.  In the same way, here all can deny the evidence.  But in Court no-one will be able to.  Why then would I resist a court action?

And guys.  There's a lot riding on this issue.  Our trolls have gone to some considerable lengths to allege that our claim is fraudulent - that my character is indefensible.  Then.  Let me defend them both.  Because it is impossible to manage this on a forum where denial of the evidence together with unacceptable libelous indulgence seems to be encouraged.  And no demands for accountability are made other than on the victim.  Which is particularly sad because you must bear in mind that there is actually only one victim here.  That's experimental proof of a breach in our unity barriers that really needs to be salvaged.  And for that I'll invest.  Both time and money. Gladly.

As ever, regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 04:19:08 AM
So.  Yes indeed Glen Lettenmaier.  I will PM you the address where you can serve those papers of yours.  I should have an address by no later than 10.00 a.m. which is in about 5 hours from now.  And I will advise everyone here when those papers actually get served.  And I'll advise you all of the claims in those papers.  It should be fun.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 21, 2012, 04:50:46 AM
So.  Yes indeed Glen Lettenmaier.  I will PM you the address where you can serve those papers of yours.  I should have an address by no later than 10.00 a.m. which is in about 5 hours from now.  And I will advise everyone here when those papers actually get served.  And I'll advise you all of the claims in those papers.  It should be fun.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie

Rosemary cannot read ..... she is to busy banging on the key board ignoring any posts just going off the wall like a child kicking their feet on the floor.

I will do this on "MY" time frame "NOT" yours ..... read the statement ( Reply #1294 ) it cannot be clearer. I do not need anything from you, no telling what would be inside coming from you.

Things like this happen to people like you that type things in public for all to see, that if said to anyone face to face not hiding behind a computer screen some may get very mad at a minimum. So get over it darlin I'd be more concerned with the plagiarizing of Figure 12a in the International Rectifier IRFPG50 Data sheet ( irfpg50.pdf ) you stole and redrew it as your invented NERD RAT - 12 MARCH 2011 DEMONSTRATION of the COP>INFINITY DEVICE CIRCUIT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316142/#msg316142   
Reply #1294 on: Today at 01:55:31 PM


This may be a "CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT" with many parties involved, filed in Cape Town, South Africa.

This will have to be done all with "VIDEO" depositions from those involved with the suit ( for court viewing only ) plus experts, in each a field of the libel dispute against you.

Like I said earlier you have sealed your own fate with your posts here that cannot be changed by you in a quick EDIT.

OH .... AND YOU "BROUGHT THIS ON" NOT ME !!!! 

BUT THIS IS ALL ABOUT "YOU" !!



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: energy1234hope on March 21, 2012, 04:54:51 AM
Nasty nasty nasty PERSON get over it and get on with your life.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 04:56:10 AM
Glen Lettenmaier,

If you didn't understand me the first time round - hopefully this will do the trick.  I am MORE than happy to defend both my good name and this technology in any court of law.  I will assist to the extent of giving you an address where you may serve your papers.  And I would be delighted to have this matter finally resolved.  More so as it will likely need some experimental proof of our claims.  And frankly - I LONG to put that evidence forward.  It will be a triumph for over unity. And that will be wonderful.  Even if I'm obliged to pick up the 'tab'. 

Franky I'm enormously grateful for this.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: PhiChaser on March 21, 2012, 05:16:08 AM
Still reading this thread...
Still waiting for the NEW MATH to come out (sigh)...
Nobody is out to get you Rosemary, they are just tired of trying to talk sense to you.
You refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong in your calculations yet your entire 'claim' rests on those same numbers. Does that make sense to you?
It doesn't make sense to me... Then again, neither does your circuit although I said I saw a mobius loop in it the first time I saw it. I have seen the term 'groundloop' several times in this thread now... Hmmm...
The whole joules per watts per second question? Was there a rebuttal I missed?? Another series of calculations somewhere??? Funny how some of those questions just keep getting ignored over and over and over...
It does make me laugh though! ;)

PC :-X
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 21, 2012, 05:22:58 AM
I'm just going to switch Rosemary's circuit over to a relatively straightforward physical model in case it gives some people insight.  This may help some people understand how Rosermary's claim is a nonsense claim.  It's amazing how Rosemary clings steadfast to the point of view that her measurements with the DSO are beyond reproach.  It's just as equally amazing that she refuses all other proposed measurements when a good scientist would welcome alternative measurement proposals.

If the battery draw-down test is ever done then it will prove Rosemary wrong.  So she is walking quite confidently into a big surprise for her, and not a surprise for just about everyone else.

Here is the physical model for Rosemary's latest setup:

We can equate voltage to water pressure.  This makes good intuitive sense, because many people already think of voltage putting 'pressure' on a resistor to force current through the resistor.

We can equate current flow to water flow, simple enough.

Lets' say one pound of water pressure per square inch is like one volt.  Let's say one liter per minute of water flow is like one amp.  I know that I am mixing English and Metric units but what the hey.  Let's assume that Rosemary's setup has six batteries for 72 volts.

So, imagine a long metal pipe, say about 30 feet long, and there is a valve at the end of the pipe.  The pipe then empties into a big bucket.  The valve is controlled by a solenoid that is controlled by a 555 timer.   The valve opens very briefly then closes, and this takes place at 60 cycles per second.   The pipe is being fed by a water pressure source at 72 PSI.

You can envision something like this:  You hear the solenoid making a 60 Hz buzzing sound, and you see that when the valve opens there is a brief spray of water that goes into the bucket.  It's almost like one of those pulsing shower heads.

Whenever the valve closes there is a brief spike of high pressure in the pipe due to the 'hydraulic shock' effect.  That spike of water pressure is due to the fact that when the valve is opened, the water starts to flow.  The water has mass and therefore it has some momentum.  It's the momentum of the moving water that causes the spike in water pressure when the valve closes.  This should be sounding familiar to some of you.  This is equivalent to the inductance in the wires in Rosie's circuit and the associated voltage spike.

So, with a long pipe of water fed by a water pressure source at 72 PSI, and a chattering solenoid-driven actuator valve letting the water flow into the bucket in pulses, most people with basic common sense know that the bucket will slowly fill with water.

That's a very good analogy to what is happening in Rosemary's circuit.  Little bursts of current flow through the MOSFET switch when the "valve opens."

So if you can transpose your common sense about water flowing through a pipe to your common sense that's telling you that current is flowing through Rosemary's circuit - then you have solved the puzzle.

Again, I must stress that this is not a "coincidence" or a "pie in the sky" idea that sounds similar to what Rosie is doing, it is literally a very good approximation of what Rosie is doing.

You know the bucket is going to fill up with water and you know that Rosemary's circuit is going to drain the batteries.  There is no 'COP infinity,' the REAL WORLD is what is real.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:25:13 AM
Hello PhiChaser,

I'm entirely satisfied that these questions would be resolved in that definitive draw down test that we're proposing.  And I've planned to invest there too - both in the time and the money - to get this proved conclusively.  I'm not sure that any 'opinion' can be considered relevant when it needs first be tested experimentally.  Meanwhile, the only new math that's required is perhaps to resolve how we can sustain a temperature over a load without the input of further current supply.  If this is true then I rather suspect that our utility suppliers have been over charging us.

And I'm not sure that Glen Lettenmaier is not 'out to get me'?  I would have thought that he was.  Unless of course I've misread those copious cut and paste posts of his.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Still reading this thread...
Still waiting for the NEW MATH to come out (sigh)...
Nobody is out to get you Rosemary, they are just tired of trying to talk sense to you.
You refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong in your calculations yet your entire 'claim' rests on those same numbers. Does that make sense to you?
It doesn't make sense to me... Then again, neither does your circuit although I said I saw a mobius loop in it the first time I saw it. I have seen the term 'groundloop' several times in this thread now... Hmmm...
The whole joules per watts per second question? Was there a rebuttal I missed?? Another series of calculations somewhere??? Funny how some of those questions just keep getting ignored over and over and over...
It does make me laugh though! ;)

PC :-X
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:28:38 AM
Hello MileHigh

I'm afraid I've not bothered to read your post as I suspect you're punting some physics that is now outdated by our experimental evidence.  But for the record - I intend having that protocol evaluated by some experts in power engineering.  And I will, most assuredly, rest on their advices.  Unless - of course - you yourself are an expert in power engineering.  In which case you too must disclose your full name and your accreditation.

Kindest regards MileHigh.  I'm always intrigued by your persistence.  It nearly matches my own.
Rosie Pose - eo ... as you put it.
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 21, 2012, 05:29:12 AM

This may be a "CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT" with many parties involved, filed in Cape Town, South Africa.

This will have to be done all with "VIDEO" depositions from those involved with the suit ( for court viewing only ) plus experts, in each a field of the libel dispute against you.



I may not know as much about circuits as you guys, but I do know a little about law.  What cause of action might you possibly have?  Also, if you think there is a class action lawsuit involved, you know nothing about class actions.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 06:32:40 AM
Photo Captions:

Fig. 1: The Ainslie multiple mosfet circuit

Fig. 2: My build using IRF830a mosfets, 0.1 ohm shunt resistor (the white rectangular thing) , 0.3 ohm gate resistor (optional), 55 ohm (25 W 120VAC) lamp + small inductor load, 3 ea. 12 V 5 A-H batteries, starting voltage 12.8 V, board front side

Fig. 3: Above, back side
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 06:36:11 AM
Fig. 4: With the small inductance and my oscilloscope, the oscillations are there but very hard to see. Look closely though and you will see them on the bottom trace in this much expanded view of less than half a cycle. Top trace is input from FG, bottom trace is circuit response (mosfet common drains)

Fig. 5: With more inductance in an external load (the little transformer choke) nice oscillations and spikes begin to show up. Just the mosfet drain trace shown, FG trace omitted for clarity. This is very sensitive to the FG's voltage offset setting.

Fig. 6: Same as above but with a bit of FG offset adjustment.

Fig. 7: Same as above but with scope set at 100 VOLTS PER DIVISION (10 v, with 10x attenuating probe). Note the spikes, they reach nearly to 600 volts.

Fig. 8: A little tweak to the FG and the noise goes away but the big spike can remain.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 06:38:34 AM
Fig. 8: A little tweak to the FG and the noise goes away but the big spike can remain.

Fig. 9: Ambient temperature measured by my non-contact IR thermometer

Fig. 10: Load temperature while running with "cleaned up" signal as in Fig. 8

Fig 11: Showing FG trace and mosfet drain trace. The FG is swinging positive and negative enough to turn the mosfet Q1 and the Q2-Q5 stack alternately, I think, so there are two sets of oscillations, fast and slower. By tweaking the FG these can be varied and moved around.

All these photos were taken within a few minutes of each other. The circuit ran for some time, with that little load transformer well over 230 degrees (F of course, water boils at 212). I was unable to measure any power drawn from the batteries.... they were still at 12.8 volts each after the test.    ::)   (Of course I didn't try very hard.... for example I didn't use the Clarke-Hess Power Analyzer, or an integrating digital oscilloscope, or even a battery draw-down test. I just used the Ainslie approved method of measuring the no-load voltage on the batteries-- and using that method, I was unable to detect any drain from the batteries. Duh... what did I expect.... I know what a feriggen lead-acid voltage vs charge graph looks like..... but I realise not everybody, in this Internet age... does. In spite of Google.)

When I am able to properly match the inductance and resistance of the load... and of course when I obtain the rest of the magic IRFPG50 mosfets... perhaps I'll beat Rosemary to the Overunity Prize. After all... it's not her circuit I'm using, is it. Just because it produces the same data... oh, never mind.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 07:17:59 AM
Oh... sorry... I forgot to mention the scope settings. Details, details. If I don't put them here though, they'll get lost.

The Interstate F43 FG is set to produce a square wave at 1 kHz, approximately, 50 percent duty cycle, with adjustable amplitude and DC offset.
The horizontal (time) scale of the HP180 oscilloscope is set to 0.2 milliseconds PER scale division for all traces above, except the expanded trace showing the Load 1 (the bulb and small choke) oscillations, which is cranked way shorter, but I didn't record it, sorry.
The "A" channel, the top trace, is monitoring the FG's output directly and is always set to 5 Volts PER division.
The "B" channel is always monitoring the common Mosfet drains, on the coil side of the load, wrt the negative rail. A compensated 10X attenuating probe is used, a Tektronix P6047. The voltage per division on the channel varies from 5 volts for some of the magnified traces to 100 volts per division for the big spike.
The batteries were freshly charged before the demo, and after the end still measured 12.8 volts, no load, using the Simpson DMM.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SeaMonkey on March 21, 2012, 08:27:50 AM
Tinsel Koala,

Your circuit board layout with the parallel
connected MOSFETs (widely spaced with
long parallel leads) is known to be highly
susceptible to "spurious oscillation" or
"parasitic oscillation."  This is especially
true when the MOSFETs are pulse driven
with rapid rise and fall times.

If you were to clean up the layout and take
the standard recommended precautions to
minimize those potential problems it is very likely
that circuit stability and your waveforms would be
somewhat different.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 21, 2012, 01:13:45 PM
Rosemary:

Quote
I'm afraid I've not bothered to read your post as I suspect you're punting some physics that is now outdated by our experimental evidence.  But for the record - I intend having that protocol evaluated by some experts in power engineering.  And I will, most assuredly, rest on their advices.  Unless - of course - you yourself are an expert in power engineering.  In which case you too must disclose your full name and your accreditation.

I am sure that you have read the posting.  It's going to be quite a sight to see when it's proved that your experimental evidence is junk.  Next time you take a shower where the shower has one of those pulsing showerheads think of your fantastical circuit because that's what it's doing.

Your proposition  is trapped in an oxymoron relative to the battery draw-down test.  If you claim 'COP infinity' and that the batteries are supposedly recharging, and if your setup draws down the batteries so they last 50% longer than the control, then is that 'victory?'

How can it be a 'victory' if you claim that the batteries never discharge but you run a test where the batteries actually do discharge?

Not that something nonsensical or contradictory or simply ridiculous ever stopped you before.

Your DSO tests on your pulsing shower-head circuit are a prime example of 'garbage-in garbage-out' as has been said many times before.  I seriously hope that you will not have mental health problems when this all comes crashing down.

MileHigh


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 01:47:41 PM
Guys - was a bit tardy but have now sent a personal message to Glen Lettenmaier detailing a service address.  I'll let you know if papers are served and what it is that he's claiming.

Let's wait and see.  Frankly I'm delighted at his proposed action.  For reasons that I've explained.  It's possible that there may be some cause to counter sue - but I'm not really concerned either way.  I just want that opportunity to defend this matter in Court where I'll be required to produce some experimental evidence.  ;D   How great would that be?  And all those experts required to comment.  Can't wait. To defend what's alleged to be indefensible.  What fun.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 02:49:32 PM
Rosemary,

See the following proposed test model. Graphic is attached.


Quote
TEST MODEL V01

B1-B6 are the same part number battery.

RL1 and RL2 are the same part number element.

RL1 and RL2 value is determined by desired dissipation. For eg. if 50W dissipation is desired, then RL1=RL2=25.92 Ohms.

With the determined load element value, RL1 temp is measured. (Control temp).

RAT circuit is adjusted to produce same measured temp in RL2 as measured in RL1.

RL1 and RL2 are either submersed in liquid, or  measured with 3 temp probes each to average out hot or cold spots on the elements. The 3 probe temps are averaged.

Temp and battery V readings  are recorded every 30 minutes. (or chart recorded)

First run is as shown.

Second run is with B1-B3 swapped with B4-B6, and with RL1 swapped with RL2.

In order for the RAT experimental apparatus to be considered the successful victor in this contest, it must outlast the Control by a minimum of 50% more time. This baseline "time" is determined by when the Control batteries reach 10.5V each.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 03:00:15 PM
Quote
In order for the RAT experimental apparatus to be considered the successful victor in this contest, it must outlast the Control by a minimum of 50% more time. This baseline "time" is determined by when the Control batteries reach 10.5V each.

Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
Tinsel Koala,

Your circuit board layout with the parallel
connected MOSFETs (widely spaced with
long parallel leads) is known to be highly
susceptible to "spurious oscillation" or
"parasitic oscillation."  This is especially
true when the MOSFETs are pulse driven
with rapid rise and fall times.

If you were to clean up the layout and take
the standard recommended precautions to
minimize those potential problems it is very likely
that circuit stability and your waveforms would be
somewhat different.

Forgive me, please, for ROFLing all over the floor.

Please note this post of mine from earlier in the thread:

@AbbaRue: you speak of scope probe leads picking up noise and showing that instead of circuit behavior. You must then explain why my circuit doesn't oscillate when I change to the mosfets that require more gate charge to switch, and you really should look at the photos of Rosemary's circuit as tested that made those scope shots of hers. Stray oscillations due to rat's nest wiring? Any circuit designer will warn you about that in a mosfet amplifier..... especially with casually parallelled mosfets.

I suggest you do a little reading up on the issue that is being discussed in this thread. Start with Post # 666, if you like, there's no need to go all the way back to the beginning -- which would be three or ten years ago, depending on how deeply you want to delve.


Compare my layout with that shown in the Ainslie demonstration pictures that FuzzyTomCat has posted just a few pages ago, also.

The poor layout IN MY CASE is DELIBERATE, the oscillations are deliberately sought after.... and yes, I COMPLETELY AGREE with your main points, and yes, I know better. Thank you....

It will be interesting to see what you think after you've gotten up to speed on this topic.

(ETA: I believe that the reversed mosfet shown in the present circuit was originally intended BY ROSEMARY and her builder to be in simple parallel with the other 4, and that they only discovered that one was installed  backwards AFTER the experiment that we are discussing and the demonstration was done. This, I think, is the point of FuzzyTomCat's posting of the two diagrams. The first one with the single mosfet is supposed to represent 5 in parallel. The second one was drawn and presented after someone with sharp eyes carefully examined the photos of the experimental apparatus and saw that one mosfet was installed backwards. At least... that's what I _think_ happened. It seems to be the only way to explain the sequence of events and the timing of the release of each of those diagrams, as FTC has pointed out.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 03:55:25 PM
@.99:

How does one adjust the RAT circuit to produce a desired temperature at the load resistance?

Would it not be easier to adjust the CONTROL circuit to give the same temperature that the RAT device is giving?

I've looked and looked and I can't see any controls for adjustment in the RAT circuit. Do you vary the FG's output? Is that completely kosher? And since when did the mere "temperature" of a resistive element (meaured in one or three or ten locations) become an indicator of energy flow? What is the specific heat of your resistor? Are you quite sure that two resistive elements, packaged without care for the issues here, have the exact same specific heat?

I think that it is necessary to use the load to heat up a known quantity of a liquid with known specific heat, in a container with known thermal leak rate, for a specific amount of time, in order to know how much energy has been delivered to the load.

However, as a simple "go-nogo" kind of test I think your idea is fine. Too bad we won't be seeing anything like what you describe from Rosemary. You might, though, from me, along with some other tests as well.

Maybe I can get SeaMonkey to help me with my poor circuit layout.

 ;D



Some terms FOR ROSEMARY to research: Temperature coefficient of resistance, Temperature vs HEAT CONTENT of a material, specific heat



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 04:08:46 PM
...... indeed I dare threaten you.  It will be the most entertaining experience yet - where I will be able to kill two birds with one stone and do so publicly.   The one bird
Here she said, before editing, simply "The one bird is you"... meaning me.
Quote
is your interventions and the second bird is our unity barriers.  Both have outlived their value.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie

Preserved for posterity.... and evidence.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 21, 2012, 04:13:12 PM
Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.

The RAT circuit can only be declared a "winner" if it continues to run for ever, outperforming the control is not the issue as a switched circuit is more efficient than a continuous DC signal. The control will simply give a base time line at which the load will drain the available energy on pure DC. If the RAT circuit performs for 50% longer than the control, with an equal load at the resistor, then the conclusion is just that, a circuit that outperformed a control by 50%. You cannot stop the test at this point because it will prove nothing regarding the claim, which is overunity and COP = infinity.

For example, if the control drops to 10.5V in 1 hour, and the RAT circuit is still running after 100 hours with no loss of voltage and the load resistor data is consistent with control load resistor data, then you can say that the RAT circuit has outperformed the control by a factor of 100 at this point in time. But you cannot stop the RAT circuit at any point, unless it stops itself. If the RAT circuit runs down at some point to 10.5V then you can recharge and swap the batteries and perform the same test to confirm stable results.

With equal load profiles in both test circuits the eventual data time components of RAT Runtime / Control Runtime = Efficiency Ratio

In order for COP = infinity to be proven you can never perform the above calculation in finality because the RAT Runtime is forever increasing toward infinity by definition, but you can take a measurement using a clock without interfering with the test and say "at this point" efficiency ratio is =

RM :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation

Pulse-width modulation (PWM), or pulse-duration modulation (PDM), is a commonly used technique for controlling power to inertial electrical devices, made practical by modern electronic power switches.
The average value of voltage (and current) fed to the load (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_load) is controlled by turning the switch between supply and load on and off at a fast pace. The longer the switch is on compared to the off periods, the higher the power supplied to the load is.
The PWM switching frequency has to be much faster than what would affect the load, which is to say the device that uses the power. Typically switchings have to be done several times a minute in an electric stove, 120 Hz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz) in a lamp dimmer, from few kilohertz (kHz) to tens of kHz for a motor drive and well into the tens or hundreds of kHz in audio amplifiers and computer power supplies.
The term duty cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle) describes the proportion of 'on' time to the regular interval or 'period' of time; a low duty cycle corresponds to low power, because the power is off for most of the time. Duty cycle is expressed in percent, 100% being fully on.
The main advantage of PWM is that power loss in the switching devices is very low. When a switch is off there is practically no current, and when it is on, there is almost no voltage drop across the switch. Power loss, being the product of voltage and current, is thus in both cases close to zero. PWM also works well with digital controls, which, because of their on/off nature, can easily set the needed duty cycle.

Power Delivery

PWM can be used to control the amount of power delivered to a load without incurring the losses that would result from linear power delivery by resistive means. Potential drawbacks to this technique are the pulsations defined by the duty cycle, switching frequency and properties of the load. With a sufficiently high switching frequency and, when necessary, using additional passive electronic filters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_filter), the pulse train can be smoothed and average analog waveform recovered. High frequency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency) PWM power control systems are easily realisable with semiconductor switches. As explained above, almost no power is dissipated by the switch in either on or off state. However, during the transitions between on and off states, both voltage and current are non-zero and thus power is dissipated in the switches. By quickly changing the state between fully on and fully off (typically less than 100 nanoseconds), the power dissipation in the switches can be quite low compared to the power being delivered to the load.
Modern semiconductor switches such as MOSFETs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET) or Insulated-gate bipolar transistors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulated-gate_bipolar_transistor) (IGBTs) are well suited components for high efficiency controllers. Frequency converters used to control AC motors may have efficiencies exceeding 98 %. Switching power supplies have lower efficiency due to low output voltage levels (often even less than 2 V for microprocessors are needed) but still more than 70-80 % efficiency can be achieved.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 04:38:14 PM
@.99:

How does one adjust the RAT circuit to produce a desired temperature at the load resistance?
Apparently Rosemary can do this. Yes, it most likely involves tweaking the FG settings, including offset.

Quote
Would it not be easier to adjust the CONTROL circuit to give the same temperature that the RAT device is giving?
No. Not easier, nor better. For starters, how can you adjust the Control temperature with a fixed number of batteries, and a fixed load resistor? We want RL1 and RL2 to be the same part number.

Quote
And since when did the mere "temperature" of a resistive element (meaured in one or three or ten locations) become an indicator of energy flow?
If the resistance and inductance of each resistor is within 5% or 10% of each other, then we should have a pretty good idea which circuit provides more capacity, simply by monitoring the average temperature of each element over time, and comparing temp profiles later.

Quote
What is the specific heat of your resistor? Are you quite sure that two resistive elements, packaged without care for the issues here, have the exact same specific heat?
We have to assume they will be quite close. But as I stated, loads RL1 and RL2 will be swapped for the second run, which will hopefully weed out any vagaries should the contest be "close". And if it IS close, then the RAT circuit does not win. So basically it comes down to this: if the RAT circuit wins by a landslide in BOTH runs, then it is pretty conclusive imho.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 04:49:02 PM
The RAT circuit can only be declared a "winner" if it continues to run for ever,
I will be satisfied if the RAT circuit operates as I stated in my proposed protocol. If it can provide substantial power to the load for 50% longer than the control in BOTH runs, then it is a winner. PROVIDED that the RAT circuit maintains an equal or better temp profile compared to the Control.

Quote
outperforming the control is not the issue as a switched circuit is more efficient than a continuous DC signal.
Depends what you mean by "efficient". If you mean how much power is delivered to the load compared to how much is wasted, then nothing is more efficient than a DC source connected directly to a load. Rosemary's circuit is at a disadvantage compared to the Control, simply because there are MOSFETs dissipating (wasting) power that is NOT getting to the load.

If that's not what you mean, then please explain.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 04:56:53 PM
Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.

Well, I certainly agree.
I wonder why, in all the Ainslie reports and attempts at publication, we +never+ have seen a graph even remotely like this one below. You know... given Rosemary's clear difficulties with arithmetic, algebra, and dimensional units (like time, length, charge, and mass) and interpreting oscilloscope displays, I doubt if she even understands plotting data on a graph or how to interpret one.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 21, 2012, 04:59:58 PM
I can see that Evolvingape is getting it.  I said a test like this would be a mess and you can already see it starting.

I am assuming that once you get the 'magic oscillations' going on the RAT circuit that you don't want to disturb it.   Then it gets tricky because it's not trivial at all for the control setup to dissipate the same amount of power as the RAT setup.  In theory the only way to determine the power dissipation in the RAT resistor is to thermally profile it.  You can't do a 'real' power dissipation measurement electrically.

There are simply too may catches and pitfalls.  You are going to go nuts trying to ensure that the RAT and the control dissipate approximately the same amount of power during the test.  I think that TKs proposal is the one to go with with just one slight tweak:

Charge your six batteries.  Then run the RAT off of three of the randomly selected batteries for one full week non-stop.  Voltmeter and digital clock in the webcam frame.

Rosemary, put the setup on top of a bunch of bricks if you have too.  Stop the alarmist nonsense that the system will go into meltdown and somebody has to watch it all the time.  You just need the setup running on a webcam with a digital clock.  Run it for one full week.

Then do the lightbulb test on camera.

Then taking the SAME lightbulb (the slight tweak) power the lighbulb with the other three unused batteries.

Then recharge all of the batteries and shuffle them and run the same test again.

In summary:

1.  RAT test with the inductive resistor for one full week with battery set A.
2.  Battery set A powers bulb until voltage drops to cut-off point.
3   Battery set B powers same light bulb until voltage drops to cut-off pont.
4.  Compare time 2 and time 3 above.
4.  Recharge all batteries and shuffle them and then do steps 1,2,3 above two more times.

That's a reasonable test without any hair-pulling over a control setup that's nearly impossible to match to the RAT setup.

Rosemary claims that the batteries do not discharge while they power the load resistor because her DSO tells her so.

The above test will take a month, or less.  If the batteries die before the week run is done then it's game over.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:01:50 PM
Hi guys,

It seems that I've unwittingly rather frightened our poor little tinselkoala.  Here's what he says I said...
Here she said, before editing, simply "The one bird is you"... meaning me.
Preserved for posterity.... and evidence.
And here's what I actually said...
Another reminder TK.  I'm most anxious to 'bring it on' - and indeed I dare threaten you.  Let us know your name and then I will be happy to engage with you - in a most appropriate manner.  Until then I put it to you that you are a coward - abusing your internet anonymity to destroy my good name while you protect your own.

Let us see the courage that you claim I lack.  Go on TK.  How about it?  I won't bother with Harvey Gramm, nor with Glen Lettenmaier - as I'm
not sure that I'd be able to even salvage my costs.  But I've got a shrewd idea that I'd do rather well off you.  Let's see whether you can manage
to defend yourself when the playing fields are leveled?  Or are you rather too frightened to put your word to the test in a court of law where such
things are usually managed?

Can't wait.  It will be the most entertaining experience yet - where I will be able to kill two birds with one stone and do so publicly.   The one bird is your interventions and the second bird is our unity barriers.  Both have outlived their value.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie
But I see why it is that he'd be frightened.  I weigh all of 115 lbs and am nearly 64 years old.  It would be enough to intimidate anyone.

My dear TK.
Can I impose on you to follow my own good example where I gave Glen a service address.  Could you perhaps PM me with a service address of your own? I got the distinct impression that you told me to 'bring it on'.  Am more than happy to oblige. For some reason you're not getting back to me on this.

Again,
Rosie Pose
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 05:08:45 PM
You threaten, however veiled, to kill me, and you expect me to give you my address so your hired thugs can piss in my garden while running away from my perimeter defense system (three very protective dogs)?

You really are a piece of work.

PERFORM THE TEST ON CAMERA. ANY of the tests .99, MileHigh, or I propose is good enough.

Or simply go back to explaining your 25.6 million Joules in 100 minutes figure. Do you realize that 25.6 million Joules DIVIDED BY 100 minutes ( or rather 100 minutes times 60 seconds PER minute)  is over 4200 Watts, and what that means? Of course not, but some of us do. A Watt is a Joule PER second, Rosemary.

Do you have electric heaters out there on the veldt? Look at the data plate and tell us what the MAXIMUM WATTAGE is of a South African portable electric heater. Please.

And you really should keep your "bird-killing" threats to yourself, or you might find yourself in more trouble than you expect. I have witnesses to the post as you posted it BEFORE your edit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
You threaten, however veiled, to kill me, and you expect me to give you my address so your hired thugs can piss in my garden while running away from my perimeter defense system (three very protective dogs)?

You really are a piece of work.

And you really should keep your "bird-killing" threats to yourself, or you might find yourself in more trouble than you expect. I have witnesses to the post as you posted it BEFORE your edit.
Golly TK.  I could hardly expect you to give me your actual address.  That would, indeed, be reckless.  Just a service address will do.  Your attorney would be a safe bet.  Surely?  And I promise you faithfully that I won't attack you on anything other than purely legal grounds.  You can even keep your name hidden - provided only that you'll answer to tinselkoala in Court. 

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

LOL.  And I assure you that I have no 'hired thugs'.  If I did I'd use them to help defend me here on this thread against this 'elite troll army' that I face, all alone.  But it's intriguing to see how frightened you are at the prospect of becoming accountable.  It must be nice to hide behind an identity - where you can say what you want - allege what you please - and absolutely get away with it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 05:27:20 PM
@ .99: Thanks for addressing my points. I was considering that one would match _power outputs_ of the DC case and the Ainslie case, by adjusting the DC voltage supplied to the (identical or exact same) inductive load during the heat profiles and battery rundowns, as I did in my time-temperature profiles of her earlier COP>17 circuit claims. But I now see that this is not possible in the present case, both for the reasons you state and for MH's reason: it's impossible to agree with Rosemary on how actually to measure the power output of her circuit conventionally. (But just between us, we know that the Clarke-Hess power analyzer can do it.)

@eatenbyagrue: I'm disappointed that you choose not to answer my direct questions from some posts ago. But not really too surprised, ttytt. Now... PWM. Thank you for your "coals to Newcastle" explanation. As .99 has pointed out, nothing beats straight DC for efficiency. The advantage of PWM controls can be clearly seen --- and its efficiency understood --- if you compare controlling the speed of a DC motor using a simple wirewound rheostat in series with the motor and battery, against using a PWM controller. Since the rheostat will be dissipating power as heat, that power won't get to the motor even though it's being drawn from the battery. By using PWM methods, the dissipation of power in external components is minimized. The motor still runs with the same torque at the same average power at the motor windings, roughly, but less power from the battery is wasted in heat. Therefore the PWM circuit is "more efficient" in that sense.
But if you want to run your motor flat out.... crank up the PWM and look at the waveform it puts out: most will default to straight-through DC at full power settings.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:32:51 PM
I will be satisfied if the RAT circuit operates as I stated in my proposed protocol. If it can provide substantial power to the load for 50% longer than the control in BOTH runs, then it is a winner. PROVIDED that the RAT circuit maintains an equal or better temp profile compared to the Control.
Depends what you mean by "efficient". If you mean how much power is delivered to the load compared to how much is wasted, then nothing is more efficient than a DC source connected directly to a load. Rosemary's circuit is at a disadvantage compared to the Control, simply because there are MOSFETs dissipating (wasting) power that is NOT getting to the load.

If that's not what you mean, then please explain.

.99


Poynty Point?  What is the RAT circuit?  I understood that the RAT circuit was a variant of the NERD circuit.  Does RAT stand for Rosemary Ainslie Technology?  In which case I'm afraid you may NOT call that circuit the RAT circuit.  It wouldn't be right.  It absolutely does NOT belong to me.  Go back to calling it the NERD circuit.  That's the name that the collaborators approved.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:35:02 PM
And I see that Glen Lettenmaier's joined us.  I wonder if you'd confirm that you received that PM Glen?  I'm most anxious that you serve those papers as you promised.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 05:35:08 PM
@Rosemary: Aren't you concerned at all about all the lies and misrepresentations YOU have made in this thread alone?

I have asked eatenbyagrue, many posts ago, to review the existing information concerning you and your claims. I asked him, after doing that, to point out exactly where I have said anything that is demonstrably false, incorrect, or not backed up by credible references. Then I asked him the same question in re _you_.

I'd still like to get an answer to those questions.

25.6 megaJoules in 100 minutes. 4200+ Watts, continuously, for over an hour and a half. True, Rosemary? Or not?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 05:40:11 PM
Here's a quick little challenge to readers of this thread:

Supply 25.6 million Joules to a liter of water within a 100 minute interval, in an unpressurized vessel.

Show me how you did it .... and what's left at the end.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 05:47:04 PM


Poynty Point?  What is the RAT circuit?  I understood that the RAT circuit was a variant of the NERD circuit.  Does RAT stand for Rosemary Ainslie Technology?  In which case I'm afraid you may NOT call that circuit the RAT circuit.  It wouldn't be right.  It absolutely does NOT belong to me.  Go back to calling it the NERD circuit.  That's the name that the collaborators approved.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary,

I defined and used the terms RAT and RATS in many posts a few months ago.

RAT = Rosemary Ainslie Team
RATS = Rosemary Ainslie Team of Scientists
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:50:17 PM
Rosemary,

I defined and used the terms RAT and RATS in many posts a few months ago.

RAT = Rosemary Ainslie Team
RATS = Rosemary Ainslie Team of Scientists
Change it Poynty.  They are NOT my team of scientists.  What a cheek.  We're the NERD team.  It is absolutely NOT my property to claim it under my name.  If you want to refer to variants of the circuit as rosemary ainslie technology - feel free.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SeaMonkey on March 21, 2012, 05:56:03 PM
Quote from: TinselKoala
...

The poor layout IN MY CASE is DELIBERATE, the oscillations are deliberately sought after....
and yes, I COMPLETELY AGREE with your main points, and yes, I know better.
Thank you....
...

You're quite welcome.  I suspected that was the case.

You've shown us that spurious oscillations are easily
obtained.  Are you attempting to illustrate that such
oscillations may be beneficial?

Or, are you simply demonstrating that they may detract
from circuit performance?

Is it a faithful reproduction of the intended Ainslie circuit?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 06:06:36 PM
Change it Poynty.  They are NOT my team of scientists.  What a cheek.  We're the NERD team.  It is absolutely NOT my property to claim it under my name.  If you want to refer to variants of the circuit as rosemary ainslie technology - feel free.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary, as far as everyone here is concerned, it is your circuit and your team. You're quibbling over semantics.

What does NERD stand for anyway? There is no reference to it whatsoever in your first post in this thread.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 21, 2012, 06:07:23 PM
@eatenbyagrue: I'm disappointed that you choose not to answer my direct questions from some posts ago. But not really too surprised, ttytt.


What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours.  I am not sure what more I can answer.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 06:09:40 PM
Rosemary, as far as everyone here is concerned, it is your circuit and your team. You're quibbling over semantics.

What does NERD stand for anyway? There is no reference to it whatsoever in your first post in this thread.

NERD TECHNOLOGY IS THE NAME OF THIS THREAD.  If you wish to discuss the RAT circuit then you must do so amongst yourselves.  My own posts ONLY relate to the NERD technology.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 21, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
Guys - was a bit tardy but have now sent a personal message to Glen Lettenmaier detailing a service address.  I'll let you know if papers are served and what it is that he's claiming.

Let's wait and see.  Frankly I'm delighted at his proposed action.  For reasons that I've explained.  It's possible that there may be some cause to counter sue - but I'm not really concerned either way.  I just want that opportunity to defend this matter in Court where I'll be required to produce some experimental evidence.  ;D   How great would that be?  And all those experts required to comment.  Can't wait. To defend what's alleged to be indefensible.  What fun.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

This it to notify everyone that I received some information from a Rosemary Ainslie's PM address here, although this is not needed as I posted several times here she will be served personally. I also indicated this would be done in my time frame, not Rosemary's obviously she can't FUCKING read or understand at all. I just want to make my intentions public there is a past history here I'm told when some one had been in this same position with her, and there was a end he didn't see coming or around now to see.

This case I would estimate the time being up to a YEAR to do this properly for a win, and then Rosemary to appeal the verdict against her like the continued nonsense here which I would like to avoid with a strong case against her.

This won't be some half ass attempt like several "COP greater than INFINITY" papers we see with incorrect and false information, that was cobbled together in a couple of days, with errors all over the place in them.

My time is better spent on my web site and the "SCAMS AND SHAMS" page featuring Rosemary and Mylow, and let my heavy weights do their legal work in their time frame.

 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 06:22:55 PM

What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours.  I am not sure what more I can answer.

Hello eatenbyagrue.  I'm reasonably certain that what TK is expecting is an outright endorsement of his traducements.  He explained that libel is defensible if it is proven to be well founded.  I believe you agreed with this as well.  But what he's now asking is that you adjudicate on whether or not he's guilty of libel.  In other words you're to adjudicate - one way or the other on the evidence of my 'mendacity' as he puts it.  Frankly I think he's rather imposing on your legal expertise to solicit some free consultation.  But if you're willing to offer this - then that's between you and him.  For my part - I am acutely aware of how this must embarrass you and I can only apologise.  I suspect that you've engaged here to entertain your interests in science.  Instead of which there seems to be some imposition on you to exploit your expertise. 

Whichever - eatenbyagrue - I am absolutely satisfied that you will get to the heart of the matter.  And if you feel the need to endorse TK's opinion - it will certainly not change my own opinion of you.  I am well aware that there may be a gross error in my calculations.  But I have now exposed that sum to two acknowledged experts - explaining the full circumstances of the test.  And they have both endorsed my numbers.  Yet I may be wrong.  Perhaps I explained it wrongly.  But even then I'm not guilty of misrepresentation.  That value has no part of our paper.  It is absolutely NOT a part of our claim.  It really does  not matter if I'm wrong.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 21, 2012, 06:44:04 PM
I will be satisfied if the RAT circuit operates as I stated in my proposed protocol. If it can provide substantial power to the load for 50% longer than the control in BOTH runs, then it is a winner. PROVIDED that the RAT circuit maintains an equal or better temp profile compared to the Control.

Your proposed protocol as stated is a test to determine whether the RAT circuit will outperform the control circuit by 50%, while dissipating the same energy value at the load, and nothing more.

A test of the claim, which is COP = infinity must be a continual non interrupted run of the RAT circuit. Any intervention by you to stop the test invalidates the results, and does not prove the claim. If the RAT circuit eventually depletes to 10.5V or fails to maintain load energy dissipation it has failed and is underunity.

The purpose of the control is to verify that a continual DC signal to a known load will dissipate the energy available in the battery bank to power the circuit in a given time. This being the time interval between time zero and when the battery bank drops to 10.5V or when the power available to the load is no longer sufficient to maintain the stable temperature at the load and the temperature drops, whichever comes sooner. 

Depends what you mean by "efficient". If you mean how much power is delivered to the load compared to how much is wasted, then nothing is more efficient than a DC source connected directly to a load. Rosemary's circuit is at a disadvantage compared to the Control, simply because there are MOSFETs dissipating (wasting) power that is NOT getting to the load.

If that's not what you mean, then please explain.

.99

Both circuits, straight DC and Switched are 100% efficient and can be nothing less. Work done + losses = Energy In. The ratio of energy dissipated at load to heat "wasted" in the components is irrelevant at this point. Both will be different because they are different circuits with different components.

The claim is that the RAT circuit will be overunity fully replacing the prime mover energy which was stored in the battery bank at time zero, and that the circuit is COP = infinity in which case it will continue to dissipate energy at the load resistor for ever.

The only measurements we are interested in is the time it takes for the control to use up it's energy, and the time it takes for the RAT circuit to use up it's energy, while an identical load energy is being dissipated in both circuits continually.

The efficiency comparison result of both circuits will be calculated by:

RAT Runtime / Control Runtime = Efficiency Ratio

The load resistor will dissipate heat at a known measurable rate and therefore you will be able to calculate how long it will take at that load to consume the energy available in the batteries. The difference in runtime between the two circuits is the efficiency ratio of those circuits compared to each other.

To prove the claim the RAT circuit must continue to dissipate a known load well beyond what the battery'y bank is capable of providing. At an efficiency ratio of 5 you can suspect it might be overunity, at 10 it is likely to be overunity, at 100 you can be pretty sure it is overunity, at 1000 you can pretty safely say it is overunity, at 10000 yeah looking good, at 100000 still going...

See ?

RM :)

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 06:48:14 PM
You're quite welcome.  I suspected that was the case.

You've shown us that spurious oscillations are easily
obtained.  Are you attempting to illustrate that such
oscillations may be beneficial?

Or, are you simply demonstrating that they may detract
from circuit performance?
Neither, actually. I am attempting a "faithful reproduction of the intended Ainslie circuit", complete with the oscillations SHE has attempted to show on her not-so-informative DSO traces. I hope to get some kind of acknowledgement from somewhere that, when the circuit is supplied with the "correct" mosfets at the end of this week, if my supplier is correct, and I can find out some coherent information as to the inductance and resistances necessary, that it does the same things that Ainslie's own circuit does. After all.... 5 IRFPG50 mosfets will be installed; three 12 volt 5 A-H batteries will be used, a load matched in inductance and resistance to her claimed load will be used.... the circuit will be laid out with as much "sloppiness" as I can stomach, and hopefully will make the same kinds of oscillations Rosemary's is claimed to make.
Note that my circuit already DOES make the same kinds of oscillations, even using Internal Load 1. My old HP180 scope can't display them well enough for photography. But.... yes indeed I do have, a short drive away, an advanced 4-channel Tektronix DSO with, IIRC, 1 GHz bandwidth.
Quote
Is it a faithful reproduction of the intended Ainslie circuit?
Some would say no, since 1) I am using IRF830A mosfets from my parts stock; my supplier only had a single IRFPG50 in stock, so I only have a single one of those on hand. They are relatively expensive so I don't want to waste them during circuit config and basic baseline studies. (I already smoked a row of 5 2n7000s on this nonsense, but they are only a buck each.) And 2) I do not yet have the correct inductances... and my LC meter is blown (new one arriving at the weekend, hopefully) so I'm pretty much shooting in the dark on the inductance. But you can see the effect in the photos....

And of course I could duplicate her circuit and layout EXACTLY even down to the pegboard and RAT's nest wiring, and she would still claim that it wasn't a good replication... because you see, I am TK, the mighty would-be debunker with lousy experimental and math skills and garage-sale apparatus. Oh... and I live in Texas, and everybody knows what that means. BIG OIL RULES !!

(ETA: Since you seem to be interested and able to interpret what you see, perhaps you would like to review my earlier work with Rosemary's original circuit and COP>17 claim, from 2009 and earlier. Check out my YT channel and look for the early videos with "Electric OU" in the title and "Ainslie" in the keywords. Did I do a faithful enough reproduction then, or not? I'd be happy to hear YOUR criticism and comments, because that could only improve my present efforts to HONESTLY TEST ROSEMARY'S CIRCUIT and CLAIMS in a rational and hopefully unequivocal manner.... since she so evidently refuses to do so in public.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 06:56:58 PM

What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours.  I am not sure what more I can answer.

Sorry... I guess you missed seeing this post, a few pages back in the thread.... because as typical, Rosemary came in with post after post of irrelevant innuendo and more absurdities to distract from the real issues.

Let me state my position clearly.

1. Rosemary Ainslie over the years has claimed that at least 4 (slightly) different circuits using ordinary MOSFETS switched in a manner detailed in the MOSFET's data sheet.... all produce overunity performance, from COP>17 (her early claim) to COP = INFINITY in her latest claim, along with battery recharging and consuming NO power from the batteries.

2. The data and evidence that she has provided are inadequate to support such a grand claim.

3. The data and evidence that she has provided... the RAW DATA (most of it) ... CAN INDEED be duplicated, on demand, both in standard circuit model simulations as .99 and others have shown, and in real circuitry, as FuzzyTomcat and others have shown, including myself. These reports have been published, posted, referenced out the wazoo.

4. Rosemary has shown repeatedly that she does not understand basic arithmetic, algebra, nor does she have a grasp of the basic concepts of the calculus. She consistently and constantly confuses units of energy and power, showing that she does not understand the difference ("`1 Watt = 1 Joule, the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE" she says).

5. The conclusion that Ainslie's circuits perform in any manner other than the perfectly ordinary, is a result of her incorrect interpretation of the raw data, including but not limited to arithmetic errors, algebra errors, and improper data collection. When the data AS SHE PRESENTS IT is analyzed correctly, no indication of any "overunity" or battery charging performance due to her circuit can be found. This part of the story has been "replicated" over and over, by everyone with the knowledge and skill and apparatus to TEST FOR THEMSELVES.

6. No credible replication of her overunity claim exists, anywhere.

7. The present discussion illustrates each of my points above, in spades.


@eatenbyagrue: You no doubt have gotten caught up a little bit by now. I ask you therefore, Counselor: have you been able to find anything in what I've said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

Have you been able to find anything that Rosemary has said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

(edited for typos and grammar)

And let me also ask... do you find anything potentially "actionable" in anything I've said? I've called her ignorant and willfully so, and referenced her "calculations" as proof. I've called her a liar, and there is ample evidence of that from FTC, Powercat, and others including myself in this thread.

And she has threatened me with "killing" and "putting to rest", along with trying to silence my VALID criticisms and CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions and tests .......  go figure.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 07:09:31 PM
Rosemary Ainslie says:
 
Quote
It really does  not matter if I'm wrong.

Oh... yes... it does indeed matter. Because it shows that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT when you attempt to discuss matters concerning Watts, Joules, and simple algebra.

Quote
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

QED. But there are also more recent examples of Rosemary's arithmetic "skills", as our three readers can see for themselves.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: SeaMonkey on March 21, 2012, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: TinselKoala
...
 Oh... and I live in Texas...
...

That is very encouraging!  Some in the Republic
seem to think they live in TX...

I'll take a look.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 07:49:55 PM
Golly TK.  I could hardly expect you to give me your actual address.  That would, indeed, be reckless.  Just a service address will do.  Your attorney would be a safe bet.  Surely?  And I promise you faithfully that I won't attack you on anything other than purely legal grounds.  You can even keep your name hidden - provided only that you'll answer to tinselkoala in Court. 

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

LOL.  And I assure you that I have no 'hired thugs'.  If I did I'd use them to help defend me here on this thread against this 'elite troll army' that I face, all alone.  But it's intriguing to see how frightened you are at the prospect of becoming accountable.  It must be nice to hide behind an identity - where you can say what you want - allege what you please - and absolutely get away with it.

I get the distinct impression you're avoiding this post of mine TinselKoala.  Is there a reason for this?

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 08:21:51 PM
Guys,  It seems that Glen Lettenmaier's legal team need some time to marshal the facts here.  Perhaps they're not quite as efficient as my own lonely lawyer.  Would that I could afford an entire team to deal with a class action.  Golly.  But then again - one would would have expected an  entire team to assemble some papers more quickly than that?  Surely?  A whole year?  A class team for a class action and it'll take a whole year to get their ducks in a row?  That seems unnecessarily 'extended'.  If that was me I'd be inclined to think that they're not taking me seriously enough.  Frankly I'd sack them.  On the spot.  I'd want to know why I was not being prioritised.   Hopefully Glen will take this advice to heart and find himself some more effective representation.  Perhaps he needs a second team.  After all.  His complaint is profound.  He has appropriated an entire experiment and associated papers as his own property and he needs untold representation to enforce this.  Absolutely.  I see the need. 

Anyway.  I'll keep you posted.  Certainly - to date - we've had nothing other than rather empty threats of action to be taken in a year's time.  Please.  I could be dead by then.  God knows.  I'm already rather old.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 08:28:12 PM
I get the distinct impression you're avoiding this post of mine TinselKoala.  Is there a reason for this?

R
Yes. As I have said before, I am afraid of you. Along with several other readers of this thread, I think that you probably are mentally unbalanced. I KNOW that if you had my contact information you would harass and bother people close to me. So if you want to know who I am.... you'll just have to figure it out for yourself, or get one of your minions like Mags or Wilby to tell you.
Of course if they do, they'll be violating my privacy and doing it without my permission, and if anything bad AT ALL happens to me or mine because of it.... then we'll understand a bit more fully just who YOU are, won't we.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 08:29:41 PM
Poynty I'm submitting my proposed test protocols to some academics between tomorrow and Friday.  I'll let you know their advices - and whether there's any level they're prepared to engage in - prior to publication.  Please note.  I am ONLY prepared to vary the protocols on their advices.  I will absolutely not defer to anyone else's.  Unless of course there are accredited power engineering experts here on our forum.  In which case I'd need to know your identities and accreditation. 

Which I think is fair.  It seems there are endless opinions - but no experts.  Sadly needed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 08:36:57 PM
Yes. As I have said before, I am afraid of you. Along with several other readers of this thread, I think that you probably are mentally unbalanced. I KNOW that if you had my contact information you would harass and bother people close to me. So if you want to know who I am.... you'll just have to figure it out for yourself, or get one of your minions like Mags or Wilby to tell you.
Of course if they do, they'll be violating my privacy and doing it without my permission, and if anything bad AT ALL happens to me or mine because of it.... then we'll understand a bit more fully just who YOU are, won't we.

I'll pretend to believe that you believe this TK.  It makes for such an interesting story.   

Kindest regards,
Rosie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 09:03:51 PM
Tinsel Koala,

Your circuit board layout with the parallel
connected MOSFETs (widely spaced with
long parallel leads) is known to be highly
susceptible to "spurious oscillation" or
"parasitic oscillation."  This is especially
true when the MOSFETs are pulse driven
with rapid rise and fall times.

If you were to clean up the layout and take
the standard recommended precautions to
minimize those potential problems it is very likely
that circuit stability and your waveforms would be
somewhat different.

Hello SeaMonkey,
He has, indeed, managed to show us a rather poor example of nothing more than a parasitic oscillation.  It has absolutely no parallel to anything that we manage on our own circuit.  But he's rather hoping that we won't see the difference.  Unfortunately TK claims a debunk on rather thin evidence.  It's his true genius.  Shamelessly vociferous.  But utterly inadequate.  Still.  If he were principled then what he says might even matter.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 09:15:46 PM
Poynty I'm submitting my proposed test protocols to some academics between tomorrow and Friday.  I'll let you know their advices - and whether there's any level they're prepared to engage in - prior to publication.  Please note.  I am ONLY prepared to vary the protocols on their advices.  I will absolutely not defer to anyone else's.  Unless of course there are accredited power engineering experts here on our forum.  In which case I'd need to know your identities and accreditation

Which I think is fair.  It seems there are endless opinions - but no experts.  Sadly needed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

Indeed, and I'll need to know "your identities and accreditation" as well. It's only fair, right?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 09:19:36 PM
Your proposed protocol as stated is a test to determine whether the RAT circuit will outperform the control circuit by 50%, while dissipating the same energy value at the load, and nothing more.
Indeed.

Quote
A test of the claim, which is COP = infinity must be a continual non interrupted run of the RAT circuit.
Please provide a quote or link from either myself or Rosemary that clearly indicates that the claim being tested with this battery draw down contest is for COP infinity?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 09:23:24 PM
Rosemary,

Indeed, and I'll need to know "your identities and accreditation" as well. It's only fair, right?

Absolutely.  That's what I'm negotiating for.  I'm hoping to find a couple of experts who are prepared to evaluate the protocols - firstly - and then associate with the actual test.  Not sure how easy it will be to manage this Poynty.  But I'm going to give it my best shot.  I don't think there will be any objections to evaluating the test requirements.  Not sure.  But I think that's doable.  God knows they'll be rather reluctant to be associated with this forum.  But who knows?  Perhaps there are those few who understand what gives.  If not?  Then I'm not sure what to do.  Just wait for publication?

You must remember that we've run these tests exactly as outlined for BP.  And that engineer was most certainly an expert.  Unfortunately the guy who led this is no longer here.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 11:04:30 PM
You mean you are trying to find some "experts" who AGREE WITH YOU and your crazy "math". And you are finding it very hard, aren't you.

Why don't you just go down to your local university and go into the graduate commons pub. There will be PLENTY of young eager students in there who will, at first, listen to you politely.... and then..... find that they suddenly have a class to go to, or a hot date.... ANYTHING to avoid having to deal with you.

You really impressed Professor Kahn at CPUT, didn't you. Maybe HE'd like to review and endorse your math and conclusions.

If YOU can't find real academic experts.... I certainly can. None that are likely to agree with your math and other conceptual errors, though.


Meanwhile... you had better hurry up and start testing. Right now, on the workbench behind me, I have a matched load running inside an insulated container of mineral oil, heating it up with MY "ains-LIE" circuit, the one I posted the pics of yesterday. I started at 1605 and a temperature of 23.1 degrees C. Using the waveform that you "think" isn't caused by the same thing yours is...... it's now 1708, about time to stop the test, and the temperature  is 67.8 degrees C. I'm heating up about 120 ml of mineral oil, specific heat 1.67 (that is, it takes 1.67 Joules to raise the temperature of one gram by one degree C).
So..... over the sixtythree minutes of the demonstrations, I have raised the oil by (67.8 - 23.1) = 44.7 degrees C. Multiply that times 120 grams (roughly) and then by 1.67, to arrive at about 8958 somethings, which I then FOLLOWING ROSEMARY"S EXAMPLE multiply by (63 x 60) seconds, to arrive at a staggering 33 860 786.4 "Joules". My batteries, as you know, are 12 volt 5 A-H and I've got three of them. So they contain (12 x 5 x 3 x 60 x 60) Joules altogether, or 648 000 Joules. IN THIS ONE TEST ALONE, I have far exceeded the battery's capacity ACCORDING TO THE SAME MATH ROSEMARY USES.
And guess what... that's right. On a no-load test the battery pack voltage is still over 37 volts -- in other words, BY ROSEMARY'S LOGIC, still fully charged.

Therefore, by the same reasoning, math and evidence that Rosemary cites, I have running RIGHT NOW on the bench behind me, a device that qualifies for the OverUnity Prize... and I've shown it FIRST in this thread.


 8)

ETA: by the time I finished writing this it's 1725 and the oil temperature is 74.2 degrees C... and still climbing slowly.

Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test. 

If she can do it that way, I demand the right to do it that way too... and therefore MY CIRCUIT actually outperforms her measly 25.6 megaJoules, since I calculated 33.8 megaJoules for my test.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 21, 2012, 11:25:13 PM
Indeed.
Please provide a quote or link from either myself or Rosemary that clearly indicates that the claim being tested with this battery draw down contest is for COP infinity?

Poynt99,

Rosemary's claim is COP = infinity, not COP = 1.5, a stopped test cannot produce results above COP = 1.5, a continuous test will produce results until infinity or the RAT circuit uses up all the juice.

If you are not testing the claim of COP = infinity, what are you testing ?

RM :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 12:03:41 AM
Figure Captions:

Fig. 1:  Charging the batteries with an automatic regulated charger
Fig. 2:  The load Ext2, in a Fleaker, submerged in about 120 ml of oil (the load's volume is about 30 ml)
Fig. 3:  Another view of load in Fleaker
Fig. 4:  The load cell inserted into an insulated 1-liter beaker for the testing
Fig. 5:  Showing the hookup to the board's Ext Load terminals
Fig. 6:  Time-temperature data
Fig. 7:  The waveform used ("sorry about the light" tm) -- top trace FG, bottom trace mosfet drains, scope set as previously described, 1 kHz


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 22, 2012, 12:15:06 AM
 There are 5 options:

 
1) Run a DC control with a load matched to the RAT load.

 
2) Run the RAT circuit with a load matched to the control.

 
3) Run the RAT circuit with everything unplugged from the mains. Maybe with a 555.

 
4) Run the RAT circuit with a DC function generator run off the battery's.

 
5) Run the RAT circuit with a large capacitor simulating a battery.

 
Option 1 the control, will definitely run down.

 
Option 2 may run forever and possibly be COP = infinity, if the function generator is powered from the mains. The energy supplier's will provide OU all day, for a price.
 
Options 3, 4, 5, are additional useful data sets.

 
If the circuit itself performs underunity then options 3 and 4 will definitely run down, and have an efficiency ratio to the control.


 
If the circuit itself performs overunity with options 2 and 5 then the possible explanation is energy supplied by the grid. Possible efficiency ratio of infinity here.


 
If the circuit itself performs overunity on options 2, 3, 4 ,5, then it has achieved overunity and COP = infinity because they are all still running.
 

 
If the RAT circuits 2, 5 outperform the control by a considerable factor, say 100, but the isolated DC only closed system circuits 3, 4 run down, then the apparent overunity energy, is coming in through the wall socket.


 
RM :)

P.S. Multi purpose mineral oil  ;D

 

 

 

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 12:15:34 AM
Now... DO THE MATH on my data.


But please, do it Rosemary's way. And tell me when my prize will be delivered... I badly need a hut on a Mexican beach.....


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 12:24:58 AM
Now... Rosemary discounts her calculation as presented here, as having nothing to do with her overunity claim... even though the claim is completely contained in the calculation.

She claims that the "true" evidence for her claim is in the paper. What it consists of is the interpretation of oscilloscope traces, perhaps including a math integration performed by the oscilloscope.

As I have shown in this and other contexts (look at my YT channel) this must be done properly and with great care to be accurate. These standards aren't met by Rosemary and her team, who can barely manage to set a trigger properly. If she understood what's necessary to perform and interpret a time integration of an instantaneous power waveform... I would be very surprised, based on the errors and misconceptions she continues to spout in this thread.

Nevertheless, now that I have duplicated and exceeded the performance of her circuit on a heating task, using the pitiful IRF830a mosfets instead of the holy magic IRFPG50..... what will happen when I reproduce her scope integration and show "negative power" "coming" from my batteries? When I show the same evidence as Rosemary, will I too be achieving overunity?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 01:01:43 AM
Could I be a "tad out"? Let's see.... OH... yes. Where Rosemary multiplies her values times the number of minutes only, I have "mistakenly" multiplied by the number of minutes times the number of seconds... since the Watt and the Joule are defined by somthings happening "PER SECOND", not "PER MINUTE". So if I duplicate Rosemary and only multiply by the 63 minutes, I get only about 565 kiloJoules instead of the whopping 33.8 megaJoules. That's better... I didn't think it was getting that warm in here. And it's only around 2/3 my battery's capacity. SO if I can perform ONE more test, raising the oil to 80 degrees or so over an hour or hour and a half.... I'm home free, with proven OU. RIGHT? Or WRONG, Rosemary?

565 KiloJoules PER 63 minutes is only 149 Watts, a lot more reasonable figure. All the more reasonable as it only requires a current of a bit over 4 amps to provide it, and that's within the Mosfet's actual capability.

And it's still wrong, of course.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 22, 2012, 03:35:24 AM
Poynt99,

Rosemary's claim is COP = infinity, not COP = 1.5, a stopped test cannot produce results above COP = 1.5, a continuous test will produce results until infinity or the RAT circuit uses up all the juice.

If you are not testing the claim of COP = infinity, what are you testing ?

RM :)

I guess you couldn't find a quote. See? ;) Helps if you're on the same page.  :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 22, 2012, 04:05:05 AM
I guess you couldn't find a quote. See? ;) Helps if you're on the same page.  :)
I never looked for a quote, it was clear you had chosen to respond to my post by dictating a condition in my response that you knew did not exist. Therefore gaining some illusionary advantage in the exchange. If a quote does exist then post it.
 
The experimental test must test the claim, if it does not it is a test of something else and resolves nothing.

 
Are you testing COP = infinity in a continuous test against a control, or are you stopping the test at a certain point and declaring a winner ?


One is a test of the claim, the other is a test of something else.


 
RM :)
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 04:05:10 AM
Oh come on. You are arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is an extremely simple and, one would think totally obvious way for Rosemary to show COP = Infinity.

Start the thing up, take some measurements, make tea and oxtail soup.... then UNPLUG THE BATTERY. Does it continue to run..... or not?




Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 04:18:04 AM
@.99:

I had an interesting "adverse event" earlier. I was at a load oil temp of over 97 degrees C, and fiddling with the FG offset trying to find a setting where both Q1 and the Q2 stack were on alternately, to see if I could drive it even hotter. I was monitoring the current from the battery pack with a cheapo DMM and it was showing about 250 mA with the spiky signal I showed before. and by careful adjustment of the FG offset and amplitude I could get it to go to 450 mA or a bit more. So... I did, and then the ampmeter suddenly started showing more and more current, until about 4 amps indicated, then .... flatline. I scrambled to disconnect power and try to figure out what happened.
Forensic diagnosis: the Q1 mosfet failed due to too much gate voltage and/or overheat, and shorted out the entire stack-- but protected the Q2 mosfets by doing so. Apparently the surge also caused an open fault in the load inductance as well, because it no longer has continuity. I haven't yet opened the insulated container to see what's up with the load... I wanted it to cool off to see how long that took. Right now at 2214 it's still at 40.6 degrees, and the failure happened at 2010 with the load at 96.5 degrees C.
The board is fixed; I still have a few 830a's left to burn. The load... I was kind of fond of that little transformer. I don't know if I have an equivalent inductance handy, to resume testing.

I was a bit disappointed though. There was no smoke or fractured mosfets.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 22, 2012, 04:21:21 AM
Oh come on. You are arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is an extremely simple and, one would think totally obvious way for Rosemary to show COP = Infinity.

Start the thing up, take some measurements, make tea and oxtail soup.... then UNPLUG THE BATTERY. Does it continue to run..... or not?

The capacitor test for this has already been done by a few people including Rosemary and the circuit quickly consumed all it's energy and stopped running. In other words underunity.

Rosemary is claiming the battery involvement is significant for about half the waveform when it is connected to the circuit, and so it must be included in a test of the claim. In all probability it will just extend the time before the same result as the previous capacitor test.

Each of the proposals I outlined 1 to 5 tests a particular variable. If apparent overunity is seen in any of them, it will indicate where it is coming from.

RM :)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 04:30:13 AM
Yes, you are clearly right, and I just hope _somebody_ starts testing _something_ soon.

Somebody other than me, I mean.

By the way, after running my system from 1605 until the mosfet failure at 2010, the load temperature was up to over 96.5 degrees (I saw 98.7 at one point but didn't actually record it). After shutdown I measured the battery voltage with the high-precision Simpson digital multimeter. It was 37.8 volts. The battery voltage was 37.8 volts when I started the test at 1605. Therefore, since the batteries are still "fully charged", I claim COP = INFINITY too, since even now.... hours after shutdown.... my oxtail soup is still hot.

In fact... since my batteries have less than 1/8 the capacity of Rosemary's to start.... I claim COP = 8 x INFINITY.


(Ever watch a rodeo clown at work? It's a very interesting occupation.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 22, 2012, 04:38:26 AM


In fact... since my batteries have less than 1/8 the capacity of Rosemary's to start.... I claim COP = 8 x INFINITY.


(Ever watch a rodeo clown at work? It's a very interesting occupation.)

Impressive claim, sounds like your in competition with the Energizer Bunny!

RM :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 22, 2012, 04:52:08 AM
evolvingape,

Clearly you were making an assumption, and it would appear to be incorrect.

Perhaps the first question you SHOULD have asked BEFORE you assumed, was "What is the claim for this drawdown test?", like I did, here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

And Rosemary seems to hint at an answer here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315692/#msg315692

Therefore, you should conclude that this test is not to prove her circuit yields COP infinity, and that we are aiming to test as I have outlined, pending agreement from Rosemary.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 22, 2012, 05:03:26 AM
TK,

That was probably a combination of too much offset, and thermal runaway. Interestingly, Rosemary has mentioned a similar occurance.

(Yes, MOSFETs too can exhibit thermal runaway).
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 05:14:43 AM
TK,

That was probably a combination of too much offset, and thermal runaway. Interestingly, Rosemary has mentioned a similar occurance.

(Yes, MOSFETs too can exhibit thermal runaway).

Thermal runaway as it's associated with MOSFETs is accounted for by an increase in current flow.  We have had absolutely NO change in our waveform over the MOSFETs which waveforms indicate that there is  NO INCREASE IN CURRENT FLOW.  Nor have OUR transistors been unduly stressed.   The difference between our claim and that of TK's is that we have the waveform downloads to prove this.

Poynty Point - do NOT try and negate the evidence by diminishing it's significance.  That's TK's technique.  And you see for yourself that it doesn't work. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 05:34:41 AM
Hi guys,

It seems that this thread of mine has now been appropriated by TK in a 'debunk' replication exercise that falls well short of a 'debunk' or a replication.  Rather inappropriately he is also now desperately appealing to all and sundry to duplicate HIS replication.   :o Which will certainly take this thread to new and unintended departures.  The only good news is that Glen Lettenmaier has stopped dominating this thread with a discussion on it's history.  For that matter nor does Powercat.  Perhaps we're still moving in the right direction - albeit somewhat circuitously.  Sadly TK also knows the value of 'filling the page'.  And he's doing this to good effect by posting photos rather than video links.  I think he realises by now that no-one bothers to dip in there to look.

Frankly I'm much heartened by all this.  I can sit back and let these rather unprincipled people display their motivations with that heavy handed overstatement - where the sheer excess undercuts their credibility.  And NOTA BENE - they need not be legally accountable.  That rather gives them the license to misrepresent to their heart's content.  And indeed they do.

Moving on.  I have finally seen that our home page carries a very significant proof of YET MORE technology that promises ever greater freedom from our utility suppliers.  Thank you Harti for posting that.  For the first time since he introduced this front page topical video - there is something that I look at time after time.  I have been saying this since the beginning.  The proof of over unity is going to MUSHROOM.  First cold fusion - and now this?  It is truly wonderful times that we're living in.  I am well aware of the need to discredit our technology.  We're not so much into the evidence as into the explanation.  And that's the focus that TK's trying to manage.

Just be cautioned.  And for those of you who still care about all this - PLEASE.  Just apply that scroll function.  I'm reasonably satisfied that there are yet those kindly academics who'll evaluate our protocols.  Hopefully the sooner the better.  But it may be that they won't engage unless forum guidelines are applied.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 05:45:11 AM
And guys, here's a nice little 'truth'.

'Necessity is the mother of invention'.  Thankfully our escalating energy costs have also generated this 'necessity'.  How nice is that?

Again, and kindest
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 06:10:57 AM
Hi guys,

It seems that this thread of mine has now been appropriated by TK in a 'debunk' replication exercise that falls well short of a 'debunk' or a replication.  Rather inappropriately he is also now desperately appealing to all and sundry to duplicate HIS replication.
STILL MORE LIES !! I have ALWAYS encouraged people to build and test YOUR circuit and report their results. I have never, to my  knowledge, asked anyone to reproduce MY circuit. I have documented everything I've done, though, so if anyone should doubt what I do... they can indeed check it for themselves. Unlike some other people I can mention.
Quote
   :o Which will certainly take this thread to new and unintended departures.  The only good news is that Glen Lettenmaier has stopped dominating this thread with a discussion on it's history.  For that matter nor does Powercat.  Perhaps we're still moving in the right direction - albeit somewhat circuitously.  Sadly TK also knows the value of 'filling the page'.  And he's doing this to good effect by posting photos rather than video links.  I think he realises by now that no-one bothers to dip in there to look.
She lies again. I am illustrating how easy it actually is to DOCUMENT one's claims with EVIDENCE. And my videos get an amazing number of views, you have no idea. Over 160,000 views of my Joule Thief video alone.
Quote

Frankly I'm much heartened by all this.  I can sit back and let these rather unprincipled people display their motivations with that heavy handed overstatement - where the sheer excess undercuts their credibility.  And NOTA BENE - they need not be legally accountable.  That rather gives them the license to misrepresent to their heart's content.  And indeed they do.

Moving on.  I have finally seen that our home page carries a very significant proof of YET MORE technology that promises ever greater freedom from our utility suppliers.  Thank you Harti for posting that.  For the first time since he introduced this front page topical video - there is something that I look at time after time.  I have been saying this since the beginning.  The proof of over unity is going to MUSHROOM.  First cold fusion - and now this?  It is truly wonderful times that we're living in.  I am well aware of the need to discredit our technology.  We're not so much into the evidence as into the explanation.  And that's the focus that TK's trying to manage.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. There is no evidence for your claim, Rosemary, because it's arisen from bogus math and misunderstandings-- wilful ignorance in other words.
Quote

Just be cautioned.  And for those of you who still care about all this - PLEASE.  Just apply that scroll function.  I'm reasonably satisfied that there are yet those kindly academics who'll evaluate our protocols.  Hopefully the sooner the better.  But it may be that they won't engage unless forum guidelines are applied.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Just be cautioned? Is that another threat?
Forum guidelines? You can't be for real, you must be some kind of comedian.

25.6 million Joules in 100 minutes to 900 grams of water. A Joule is a Watt per Second. Over 46 million Watts to make your soup. You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's as if you are going around telling people they are green. No, I'm not green. Yes, Rosemary says, you are indeed green, and I can find two academics somewhere that might be able to tell you you're green, if only this forum would follow the rules. NO, I'm not green. YES, Rosemary says, anyone looking through these glasses can see that you are indeed green, and I'll sue you if you object and try to make me prove it. NO I"M NOT GREEN. YES YOU ARE, shouts Rosemary, and she waves her five-time rejected "article" proving you are green, as  proof that you are green.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 06:14:48 AM
Thermal runaway as it's associated with MOSFETs is accounted for by an increase in current flow.  We have had absolutely NO change in our waveform over the MOSFETs which waveforms indicate that there is  NO INCREASE IN CURRENT FLOW.  Nor have OUR transistors been unduly stressed.   The difference between our claim and that of TK's is that we have the waveform downloads to prove this.

Poynty Point - do NOT try and negate the evidence by diminishing it's significance.  That's TK's technique.  And you see for yourself that it doesn't work. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

That must be why Rosemary used those huge heat sinks all stacked up together. HER transistors don't get warm, they just need some cuddly support.

IRFPG50 RDSS = 2.0 ohms
IRF830a RDSS = 1.4 ohms

Maybe one of your academics can explain what the implications are of these numbers. But you won't be able to understand them !!

Rosemary cries out "BUT YOU ARE GREEN NEVERTHELESS" as I walk by a mirror and see my normal healthy pink or brown glow.


ETA: I note that nobody is questioning my data or calculations. Therefore I must conclude that you all approve of them, including of course my demonstration of COP=infinity by showing that the battery had the same voltage after 4 hours of heating a load to 96.5 degrees Celsius. (I was just kidding about COP = 8 x infinity.... I know that you really aren't green).
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 06:17:24 AM
And guys, here's a nice little 'truth'.

'Necessity is the mother of invention'.  Thankfully our escalating energy costs have also generated this 'necessity'.  How nice is that?

Again, and kindest
Rosemary

That's as close to the "truth" as you've come in a long time, Rosemary. Careful that you don't burn yourself ... the Truth is dangerous.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 06:27:33 AM
Guys,  It seems that Glen Lettenmaier's legal team need some time to marshal the facts here.  Perhaps they're not quite as efficient as my own lonely lawyer.  Would that I could afford an entire team to deal with a class action.  Golly.  But then again - one would would have expected an  entire team to assemble some papers more quickly than that?  Surely?  A whole year?  A class team for a class action and it'll take a whole year to get their ducks in a row?  That seems unnecessarily 'extended'.  If that was me I'd be inclined to think that they're not taking me seriously enough.  Frankly I'd sack them.  On the spot.  I'd want to know why I was not being prioritised.   Hopefully Glen will take this advice to heart and find himself some more effective representation.  Perhaps he needs a second team.  After all.  His complaint is profound.  He has appropriated an entire experiment and associated papers as his own property and he needs untold representation to enforce this.  Absolutely.  I see the need. 

Anyway.  I'll keep you posted.  Certainly - to date - we've had nothing other than rather empty threats of action to be taken in a year's time.  Please.  I could be dead by then.  God knows.  I'm already rather old.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider. I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit, but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak. I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Lettenmaier
To: Stefan Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Libel Case - Rosemary Ainslie

Hi Stefan,

I was asked to get a listing of IP addresses that the Over Unity member Rosemary Ainslie has used to access
the Over Unity web site.

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.

I am only asking this of you to avoid any legal process that would arise to get this information from you, in a
timely manner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Glen Lettenmaier
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 06:52:24 AM
Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider.

Hello Glen,
I'm not sure that we're on the same page.  In the first instance I need only prove my identity to those at the service address - and this is well established.  And there is NO way that an IP address has EVER established an identity.  Surely you know that?  I wonder if you're not possibly trying to solicit my IP address for nefarious purposes?  It's not something one usually makes generally available.   And I'd be particularly reluctant to allow you easy access to this.  We all know your earlier Skype boasts where you crashed into certain archives.  It's well known.  We're well aware of your talents in this regard.

I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit,
Indeed.  LOL  Quite possibly?  One certainly hopes so.   ::)

but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak.
WHAT?  I'm NOT actually able to appoint your own defense team.  Quite apart from which you alleged you already had one.  Some heavyweights?  Not sure.  I certainly got that general impression.  But I can't appoint your lawyers.  Sadly. I think it would be seen as prejudicial.  LOL.  eatenbyagrue - are you reading this?  I would have thought this is somewhat unusual.

I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.
Thank you for this.  At least that service address wasn't wasted.  But I also think we shouldn't be talking to each other.  I've appointed my attorney.  You've appointed your team of attorneys.  And I'm not sure that my attorney will see fit to talk directly to you Glen?  I think we both require more professionalism here.  With respect.  You actually need first to bring an action to bear against me in support of your claimed ownership of our paper and of the 'discovery' related to our circuit.  And I believe you've got a host of miscellaneous quarrels that will involve a 'class action' - as you put it. 

Thank you for your efforts - nonetheless.  They're richly entertaining.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 06:56:22 AM
Quote
It seems that this thread of mine has now been appropriated by TK in a 'debunk' replication exercise that falls well short of a 'debunk' or a replication.  Rather inappropriately he is also now desperately appealing to all and sundry to duplicate HIS replication.

LOL.... lie after lie. HERE is the circuit and test I want all and sundry to 'duplicate'. It's going to be kind of difficult though, since the CIRCUIT DIAGRAM SHOWN is NOT the diagram of the device shown.... is it, Rosemary. And wherever will anyone get all those clipleads, and how can anyone be expected to keep them straight?

And whatever are those huge heat sinks for, I wonder.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 07:07:59 AM
Hello Glen,
I'm not sure that we're on the same page.  In the first instance I need only prove my identity to those at the service address - and this is well established.  And there is NO way that an IP address has EVER established an identity.  Surely you know that?  I wonder if you're not possibly trying to solicit my IP address for nefarious purposes?  It's not something one usually makes generally available.   And I'd be particularly reluctant to allow you easy access to this.  We all know your earlier Skype boasts where you crashed into certain archives.  It's well known.  We're well aware of your talents in this regard.
Indeed.  LOL  Quite possibly?  One certainly hopes so.   ::)
WHAT?  I'm NOT actually able to appoint your own defense team.  Quite apart from which you alleged you already had one.  Some heavyweights?  Not sure.  I certainly got that general impression.  But I can't appoint your lawyers.  Sadly. I think it would be seen as prejudicial.  LOL.  eatenbyagrue - are you reading this?  I would have thought this is somewhat unusual.
Thank you for this.  At least that service address wasn't wasted.  But I also think we shouldn't be talking to each other.  I've appointed my attorney.  You've appointed your team of attorneys.  And I'm not sure that my attorney will see fit to talk directly to you Glen?  I think we both require more professionalism here.  With respect.  You actually need first to bring an action to bear against me in support of your claimed ownership of our paper and of the 'discovery' related to our circuit.  And I believe you've got a host of miscellaneous quarrels that will involve a 'class action' - as you put it. 

Thank you for your efforts - nonetheless.  They're richly entertaining.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I duly noted "REFUSAL" of request.

Thank You
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 07:08:59 AM
Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 07:12:51 AM
I duly noted "REFUSAL" of request.

Thank You

Indeed Glen.  It's not so much that I'm REFUSING - but that I COULD NOT DO SO even if I wanted to.  Not under any jurisprudence anywhere in the world.  It is UNDERSTOOD that the claimant must find his own representation.  With the best will in the world - I cannot oblige you.  You really need to let that team of attorneys of yours advise you better.

Regards nonetheless
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 07:43:16 AM
Actually guys this is all rather easier than I thought.  I feel rather shy of Glen's inabilities here and equally rather ashamed of my ability to exploit them.

In fairness - here's the thing.  Glen most certainly replicated our experiment.  However, he feels that this is his own discovery and not ours.  I am absolutely NOT qualified to argue.  And frankly I don't care.  Ownership is not my thing.  However.  It's true that he assembled a resistor in the face of some rather shaky descriptions of this in our Quantum paper.  BUT.  Unfortunately he, Harvey and Ashtweth saw fit to divorce that experiment - not from our claim - but from the prediction of that result in our thesis on this.  Since it not only was always the basis of our evidence this move was absolutely NOT something that I could handle.  This thesis is considerably more important than the associated evidence of that thesis.  Certainly to over unity research. Then to compound the folly he also started a thread at energetic forum - where Harvey and he variously insinuated or stated that the claims in that paper were fallacious.  Again.  This caused a total rift.

Here's the thing Glen.  I am most appreciative of your replication.  You have drawn great deal of attention to the reality of over unity.  But by the same token you are profoundly contradictory when you deny that evidence and yet allow that paper to be published under your name on your Scribd account.  If you wish to leave that paper there - then come out and say it.  That you 'stand' by those numbers.  Unless you do this then you do not have a leg to stand on.  And you've wasted some many years in denying this when you could have been capitalising on its use and on the certain publicity that is associated with a valid replication.  Quite apart from which I think you had some plans to apply the technology.  Surely you see it now.  You absolutely CANNOT exploit or advance anything at all while you also deny the benefits. 

I am more than happy to bury the hatchet - provided only that you do not disclaim that hard work related to those papers.  Then I would be more than happy to allow the 'filming' of our test on your own channels - possibly in conjunction with our own - as I it would be foolhardy to trust to your intentions at this early stage.  And you would need to accede to my rights and all the collaborators' rights to publish that paper and use iit in any context that they choose. 

In any event.  It is clear to me that you want to engage.  And this is the ONLY way that it would be possible.  Just think about it.  This engagement that you're offering is getting rather absurd.  And I get it that you actually DO want to be involved.  That's my best offer.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 07:54:00 AM
Below you can see the famous scope trace from the Ainslie demo video. The presenter should be made to attend oscilloscope management classes for his egregious violation of quantitative scoposcopy... but I know that's not going to happen.

Let me try to explain what's happening on this screen.

On the left side in the blue margin are four little numbers whose color corresponds to a trace color. 1, 3, 2, and 4, from the top.

These markers indicate the "zero" level or baseline for that corresponding scope channel. Note that, except for the oscillations, the only trace that actually indicates SWITCHING is the gate or FG signal, the blue trace 3. Its volts per division setting can be read down below, and it's 2 volts per division. It would be nice to have some graticle illumination so we could see the scale divisions themselves. This trace is going from ZERO volts at the marker on the left, down to minus something, lost in the blur, but the scope's parameter function tells us (the box on the middle right) that this noise averages to -1.52 volts.
(EDIT: Actually this box is telling us that the trigger is on Ch 2 and is set at 1. 52 volts. Sorry, I need new glasses. The true value of the midpoint of the oscillations on the blue trace seems to be about 6 scale tics or a bit over 2 volts, not 1.52 volts.)
This indicates that the circuit IS drawing down the FG's output, just as I have shown... because the mosfets won't even begin to switch at an ACTUAL gate input that's so small.

The purple trace is the battery voltage. Note it is set at 50 volts per division, and the "noise" and the normal battery voltage between the noise is at about 6 little ticks above its zero marker, as it should be since there are 5 little ticks PER division.
The other two traces are more problematic. Note that they do NOT show the up-and-down deviations of the gate signal, but rather are flat across through the noise oscillations just like the battery traces.
Now...these mosfets switch ON when the gate receives a POSITIVE charge of enough magnitude. So the only way a NEGATIVE gate drive pulse could switch a mosfet ON is if... something is screwy somewhere. It could be a result of the combination of the FG's offset setting and the voltage draw-down caused by the low impedance of the circuit connected to the FG.
The number 1 trace, yellow, the voltage drop across the shunt, is set at 1 volt per division and is oscillating around the ZERO value, and the scope is trying to compute a mean and other statistics on the noise band... and is coming up with a small negative number. This is not unusual, surprising, nor does it represent what is actually happening. In other words... it's an artefact caused by improper use of the oscilloscope, and tells us nothing about the current flowing across the shunt except that it's too noisy for the scope to resolve during the oscillations.
The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.
In the cursor information box at the upper right, there is much useless info displayed, but the delta-t--- the duration of a single cycle--- appears to be 100 milliseconds. (The timebase is set at 40 milliseconds per horizontal major division). That's the horizontal distance (time) between the A cursor and the B cursor, the vertical white lines on the left part of the shot. Twelve minor ticks at 40 ms per 5 ticks... that's 100 ms.
 Er... um...... cough cough..... that's 10 cycles PER second. I thought the FG was set to 10 kHz or something realistic like that. But the scope is telling us that sure enough, we are operating at 10 Hz. And they are showing you four or five cycles at 10 Hz when the interesting stuff is happening at the start and finish of the oscillations, at 1 MHz or more. No wonder it just looks like a blur across the trace.

So we have a circuit made of a true rat's nest of wires, using mosfets wired together in the most casual and naive manner possible, with lots of stray capacitance and inductances all over the place, with manifest evidence of massive feedback oscillations and a presenter who thinks an oscilloscope is for making pretty wiggley lines with. And this scope trace is the evidence of massive overunity.

They have TWO digital scopes, 4 channels each, connected to the circuit in exact parallel. And they can't even get a stable trigger on the LeCroy, and its lack of bandwidth becomes evident. They have these fancy scopes and don't use them properly. I would have used the Tek to take voltage across the shunt on one channel, drain voltage on a second one, used the math to multiply them together for an instantaneous power trace on the third trace, and then integrated that over time on the fourth displayed trace. Then the LECroy could monitor battery voltage and the FG and the other raw parameters just like it is, and there would actually be some DATA coming out of the demonstration instead of pretty colored wiggly lines.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 22, 2012, 10:35:04 AM
TK
Well done on the new testing,  I feel it doesn't matter how well you do it Rosemary will never be satisfied with the result,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality,
the sad truth is that delusional people believe their own lies.
 
Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.
 
 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 11:05:57 AM
Howdy members and guests,

This will be interesting to have a comparison with the Quantum 2002 COP>17 device of Rosemary's and the modified Device I made with my custom hand made borosilicate glass 10 ohm inductor ....

Although this is only a "libel" lawsuit, but ........ it would be absolutely fantastic to see what has been hidden for years, never to be seen by any Open Source experimentalist and for Rosemary to admit she still has the device people will pay money to see the infamous COP>17 thingamabob device in operation and actually working.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302)      Reply #1379 on: March 21, 2012, 11:08:59 PM

Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html#post60279 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html#post60279)             07-13-2009, 07:52 AM


 witsend (http://www.energeticforum.com/members/witsend.html)              ( aka Rosemary Ainslie )  Senior Member

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned.

Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.


So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have

been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that

we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation.

I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was

due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.


I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in

that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a

problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my

own inability to read such.


So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented.

I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund

you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on

the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.


What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT.  I have the

experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many

different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this

prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after

publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a

copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack

of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.


Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum

article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM

in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary

Edit FREE for the RECORD .....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Flux It on March 22, 2012, 12:42:23 PM
Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider. I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit, but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak. I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Lettenmaier
To: Stefan Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Libel Case - Rosemary Ainslie

Hi Stefan,

I was asked to get a listing of IP addresses that the Over Unity member Rosemary Ainslie has used to access
the Over Unity web site.

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.

I am only asking this of you to avoid any legal process that would arise to get this information from you, in a
timely manner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Glen Lettenmaier

Perhaps you should find a lawyer that has heard of the Data Protection Act, then maybe move on to one that can actually spell forensics. Gee, that email looks like such an official document though...you have got to be kidding.

If you do have a lawyer I would suggest litigation for the apparent chemicals in your drinking water... :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 12:47:05 PM
TK
Well done on the new testing,  I feel it doesn't matter how well you do it Rosemary will never be satisfied with the result,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality,
the sad truth is that delusional people believe their own lies.
 
Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

Hi Cat,

What surprises me is the Quantum 2002 article was about a COP>17 thingamabob device ...... and now it's a COP INFINITY device she want to show in court that I copied and stole  ??  ODD .....   ???

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302    Reply #1379 on: March 21, 2012, 11:08:59 PM

Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.    :o


Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 01:53:04 PM
Guys - I need to caution you all - yet again.  There are gross misrepresentations in TK's earlier post and I'd be sorry if you lost the significance of these waveforms.  We used the Tektronix to endorse the LeCroy numbers.  This because the Tektronix is not grounded and we need to obivate grounding concerns expressed by many of you - including Harti.  In other words we could thereby prove that the LeCroy results were not skewed due to grounding issues. Because their results were the same.  And the LeCroy being available from the get go was also our instrument of record.

However, the complaint related to lack of graticule illumination is absolute nonsense.  That's the preferred setting of the Tektronix.  And his complaint about the lack of switching is precisely because this is an extraordinary result.  We are able to adjust the offset to resist all current flow during the 'on' period of each duty cycle. The yellow trace.  And we're dissipating some significant heat from the element resistor. 

This indicates that the circuit IS drawing down the FG's output, just as I have shown... because the mosfets won't even begin to switch at an ACTUAL gate input that's so small.
Also a load of nonsense.  We get a very clean switch at this level.  However, on this setting we've applied enough resistance at the offset to restrict any flow of current at all during the on period of each switching cycle.  One day, hopefully TK will catch up with the argument.  He clearly has no clue.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'the circuit' 'drawing down' anything at all.  And he has the temerity to try and criticise the presenter of that video.  I rather think the evidence suggests that it's TK who's guilty of 'egregious violation of quantitative scoposcopy'.  Golly.  Such big words.  8) :o

The purple trace is the battery voltage. Note it is set at 50 volts per division, and the "noise" and the normal battery voltage between the noise is at about 6 little ticks above its zero marker, as it should be since there are 5 little ticks PER division.
LOL.  This is yet more egregious violation.  Whatever next.  I think we'd all like to know what he means by 6 little ticks or 5 little ticks?  I rather suspect he can't work out those peaks at each oscillation.

The other two traces are more problematic. Note that they do NOT show the up-and-down deviations of the gate signal, but rather are flat across through the noise oscillations just like the battery traces.
And YET more egregious violations.  LOL.  If those oscillations across the battery are classified 'noise' then that's rather a lot of noise to be generated by those batteries.  And I'd need to be exceptionally adventurous to claim that the battery voltage is 'rather flat'. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 01:55:41 PM
continued/...
I split this post guys.  Just way too long.

Now...these mosfets switch ON when the gate receives a POSITIVE charge of enough magnitude.
I'm glad he explains this.  Else how would we know?

So the only way a NEGATIVE gate drive pulse could switch a mosfet ON is if... something is screwy somewhere. It could be a result of the combination of the FG's offset setting and the voltage draw-down caused by the low impedance of the circuit connected to the FG.
Which is UTTERLY meaningless drivel.  What I think he's trying NOT to say is...'Golly.  It seems that when the MOSFET's on there's no current flow.  And when the MOSFET's off - then there's current flow.  How odd.'  At this point there's an anomaly.  I'd repeat the argument if I thought his opinion mattered.  But frankly I'd prefer to deal with Poynty.  At least he's already looked at this - and, unlike TK - he also has the merit of being exceptionally bright.
 
The number 1 trace, yellow, the voltage drop across the shunt, is set at 1 volt per division and is oscillating around the ZERO value, and the scope is trying to compute a mean and other statistics on the noise band... and is coming up with a small negative number. This is not unusual, surprising, nor does it represent what is actually happening. In other words... it's an artefact caused by improper use of the oscilloscope, and tells us nothing about the current flowing across the shunt except that it's too noisy for the scope to resolve during the oscillations.
What a load of nonsense. I think that Tektronix would, themselves rather object to the implications here.  There is no way the scope can be used improperly.  A setting is a setting.  We cannot fudge the results.  And that Tetronix is WELL able to cope with measurements at those frequencies and indeed much greater. 

The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.
Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

Actually guys.  That's as far as I want to go with this nonsense.  I cannot tell you how much it irritates me.  A complete time waster.  Yet again TK is presuming to give rational explanations when he actually hasn't a clue how that machine operates or what the technology shows.  It's rather disheartening.  And if I continued with this post it may even give the impression that anything he says can be taken seriously.  I think I must just go back to ignoring his input.  I trust you'll do the same.  Or if you do read it - then PLEASE.  Take it with somewhat more than a grain of salt.  He's winging it and he's propagandising.  It has NOTHING to do with science.  And even less to do with our technology.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 02:03:03 PM
Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.
Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 02:27:12 PM
Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.

Rosemary,

You are so full of CRAP ..... I can smell it 10,000 miles away.

And if this is your attorney .... you have failed again. Looks to me a friend or your son's Jamie schoolmate, nothing but a P.O box   :'(

http://www.privateproperty.co.za/manson-tobin-attorneys-/attorney-22355.htm

Some one in International Internet law might be something to look into.

COP>INFINITY on the Quantum 2002 article device that you got a COP>17 ..... good thing you admitted to having the experimental COP>17 apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities still, how about a YouTube video some photos of it ???

 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 02:40:07 PM
I assure you that you've been given the service address of an attorney Glen.  Why would I do otherwise? I'm sure they'll write to you to acknowledge receipt of those papers.  Can't wait to read them.

Golly
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: energy1234hope on March 22, 2012, 02:52:38 PM
Rosie it was so peaceful here before all these lot found out you had your own thread. They certainly came out of the woodwork to put sh*t on you. They managed to shut your last thread down by comment after comment of crap. Wish you the best of luck with this lot.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on March 22, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
evolvingape,

Clearly you were making an assumption, and it would appear to be incorrect.

Perhaps the first question you SHOULD have asked BEFORE you assumed, was "What is the claim for this drawdown test?", like I did, here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662)

And Rosemary seems to hint at an answer here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315692/#msg315692 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315692/#msg315692)

Therefore, you should conclude that this test is not to prove her circuit yields COP infinity, and that we are aiming to test as I have outlined, pending agreement from Rosemary.
Poynt,
 
You asked for general input to determine reasonable test parameters, I offered some in good faith. If this upset you in some way I apologise.

 
You replied to them with agreement that the test is not to test the claim of COP = infinity.

 
I just want to know why you are redefining the claim to declare a winner at 50% over control ?

 
The claim on record as made by Rosemary is COP = infinity, as everyone knows.

 
A simple proof of an apparent anomaly is to turn it on and leave it alone, so why are you testing something else ?

 
RM :)

 
www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1314/


Quote: 
In order for the RAT experimental apparatus to be considered the successful victor in this contest, it must outlast the Control by a minimum of 50% more time. This baseline "time" is determined by when the Control batteries reach 10.5V each.

 
Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 03:28:37 PM
Rosie it was so peaceful here before all these lot found out you had your own thread. They certainly came out of the woodwork to put sh*t on you. They managed to shut your last thread down by comment after comment of crap. Wish you the best of luck with this lot.

The crap you are seeing.... look at where it comes from. Ainlsie's ridiculous math errors, her untenable claims about her junk circuit, her misinterpetation of what her fancy scopes are showing, her threats, her contradictions of what people tell her directly .... all of it COMING FROM HER is crap.


Do you see the "drain" trace on her oscilloscope trace? Except for the noise bands, those mosfets are OFF and not passing power to the load. When the oscillation is happening, they are, but much less efficiently than if the oscillation wasn't there.
The DRAIN of a mosfet in this kind of circuit is HIGH... that is, at or near the battery's positive voltage.... when the load is OFF and not carrying current. The DRAIN of the mosfets will go LOW... drop considerably below battery voltage... when the mosfet turns ON. What you are seeing in those oscillations is a mosfet -- likely only one in the Q2 stack--- turning on and off rapidly due to the FEEDBACK that's ringing around in the circuit due to the lousy layout and all those stray wires and their inductances and capacitances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIDnjmPjW4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIDnjmPjW4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA)

Sorry about the tone of those videos.... I was embroiled in a discussion much like this one... the builders at Energetic Forum eventually  became so frustrated with Rosemary that she was banned under most acrimonious circumstances there and NONE of the enthusiastic builders and experimenters who believed in her at first could confirm her claims about overunity performance of that circuit (the "Quantum Magazine" circuit.) It's very frustrating to have to do this kind of remedial education with people who "think" they know it all but are mostly wrong.

This little fact caused no end of confusion for Rosemary and Err-on and still does, apparently. It is at the root of her early mistake, the COP>17 farce, where her timer was putting out a 97 percent ON duty cycle instead of the 3 or 4 percent ON as she claimed. She was thinking that HIGH voltage at the mosfet drain meant her circuit was ON !!

Does she still think that? From looking at her published scope trace and listening to the "explanation" of the presenter.... I think she does.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 03:28:53 PM
Guys,

I think you all need to change directions here.


Rosemary has indicated her Quantum 2002 article has been updated from a "CLAIM" of COP>17 to a incredible COP>INFINITY and is willing even to show it in court if need be.

The Quantum magic device has -

(1) IRFPG50 MOSFET
(1) 555 timer circuit on a separate dc battery power supply from the load inductor.
(1) fly back diode across the load inductor

It doesn't need all those mosfets in what ever wiring configuration, every circuit has been used now, there's only so many in Rosemary's NERD RAT examples Q1 / x5 or the Q1 / Q2-Q4 .   ???



So what say you ..... the Quantum 2002 article COP>INFINITY up-grade, just dust it off Rosemary and lets go !!!!


 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 03:35:28 PM
Rosie it was so peaceful here before all these lot found out you had your own thread. They certainly came out of the woodwork to put sh*t on you. They managed to shut your last thread down by comment after comment of crap. Wish you the best of luck with this lot.

Why don't you REFUTE some of the "crap comments" that are coming out of the woodwork? Just show where and how FuzzyTomcat is wrong. Just show where Powercat is actually endorsing Rosemary like she says and like HE DENIES. Just show where I am wrong in any of my assertions. Show where MileHigh is wrong in his suggested test. Show where I am wrong in the test I suggested.

Build and test Rosemary's circuit FOR YOURSELF, then come back and talk about crap.

Or simply show how Rosemary is right in the following CRAP calculation:
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

And while you are at it, explain to me why and how MY experiment, when the data are calculated this way, is not also massively overunity.

There is certainly a lot of content-less CRAP on this thread as you say. But it's not coming from Rosemary's detractors. NONE of her supporters or defenders, like YOU, have posted any EVIDENCE or EXPERIMENTAL WORK of their own to support your assertions that the detractors are speaking CRAP.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 22, 2012, 04:28:24 PM

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.


It appears you know as little about the Internet as you know about the law.  What the hell is an "IP Provider?" 


And you go on to say "any other member using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of each name used".  You mean if someone else is sneaking into Rosemary's house and using her computer to post on overunity.com?


And good luck subpoenaing those IP records.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 04:33:55 PM
Guys,

I think you all need to change directions here.


Rosemary has indicated her Quantum 2002 article has been updated from a "CLAIM" of COP>17 to a incredible COP>INFINITY and is willing even to show it in court if need be.

The Quantum magic device has -

(1) IRFPG50 MOSFET
(1) 555 timer circuit on a separate dc battery power supply from the load inductor.
(1) fly back diode across the load inductor

It doesn't need all those mosfets in what ever wiring configuration, every circuit has been used now, there's only so many in Rosemary's NERD RAT examples Q1 / x5 or the Q1 / Q2-Q4 .   ???



So what say you ..... the Quantum 2002 article COP>INFINITY up-grade, just dust it off Rosemary and lets go !!!!


 ;)


I say this: The Quantum circuit has many problems, not the least of which is awaiting anyone who builds and tests even the timer portion of the circuit AS PUBLISHED by Rosemary and never RETRACTED....

EDIT: I see that Fuzzy has posted Rosemary's retraction and acknowledgement of this error along with her fatuous apology to me. Did you realise that she later "retracted" this retraction and apology and continued to claim that the circuit was correct afterwards?

..... although all of her previous collaborators had to discard that circuit and build their own timers.... since the one published by Rosemary produces an INVERTED duty cycle: it keeps the mosfets OFF for 3.5 percent of the time rather than ON for that short duty cycle. Hence... once again... it is possible to reproduce her load heating time and temp profile DATA..... but her conclusion, that it happened at a short mosfet duty cycle... is wrong, because once again SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND circuitry or the quantitative use of an oscilloscope. Or even the qualitative use.... she was publishing scope traces that looked like this during those days:

(Is this one of hers, or one of mine?)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 04:39:33 PM

It appears you know as little about the Internet as you know about the law.  What the hell is an "IP Provider?" 


And you go on to say "any other member using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of each name used".  You mean if someone else is sneaking into Rosemary's house and using her computer to post on overunity.com?


And good luck subpoenaing those IP records.

Well Counselor, since you are giving legal advice here.... what does your legal dictionary call it when a person seeks to obtain a monetary award under false pretenses, by making false claims and failing to provide supporting evidence of his claims?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 04:54:11 PM
"This because the Tektronix is not grounded and we need to obivate grounding concerns expressed by many of you..."

Idiot.

YOU HAVE GOT EVERY PROBE GROUND FROM EVERY CHANNEL ON EACH OSCILLOSCOPE AS WELL AS THE FUNCTION GENERATOR CONNECTED DELIBERATELY TO THE SAME POINT ON THE CIRCUIT BOARD.

Under those circumstances it matters not one whit whether one of the devices has an isolated power supply. ALL YOUR PROBES AND INSTRUMENT GROUNDS ARE CONNECTED TOGETHER, INCLUDING YOUR FUNCTION GENERATOR's "minus" LEAD.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 22, 2012, 05:10:29 PM
Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.

I find your obsession with Fuzzy as ridiculous as your stubbornness to carrying on regardless with your claim,
despite all the credible evidence against you, very few people even come to your defence and the majority of the ones that do are suspiciously new members.

I note from your response that you avoided the second part of my post, so here it is again.
How strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 05:24:04 PM
Rosemary says many many untrue things in that post of hers. Here's just one:
Quote
Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 07:54:00 AM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../msg316305/#msg316305)<blockquote>The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.</blockquote>Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

Please watch this video carefully, with liberal use of your "pause button" if you can find it, Rosemary.

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

0.21 : a diagram is shown that is not the diagram of the circuit being shown... it does not show the reversed mosfet which results in the ACTUAL circuit being the one with the Q1-Q2 crossover.

0.42-44  That is either the GATE pin or the SOURCE pin of that mosfet connected to the point F in the circuit. The DRAIN is the middle pin. Since the GATES of all the other mosfets have a red sleeve on them, this is probably the GATE of that mosfet there connected to the point labelled F on the board. Also, the diagram shows the FG's output connected to point C. But the actual board shows the red alligator clip from the FG is actually connected to point F, not point C. (0:42).

1:42 and on.
Presenter says "and F would be the common drain"  which is shown clearly on the diagram to be CHANNEL 4, the green trace on your famous oscilloscope. Or is that wrong too? What do YOU claim the green trace shows?
What other signal from your circuit would require an AC coupling setting at 100 volt per division?

And the "small ticks" that I  speak of are evident to ANYONE WHO HAS EVER USED AN OSCILLOSCOPE TO MAKE QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS. You should have your glasses checked. The screen is crossed by two white lines, horizontal and vertical that meet in the very center. These are the SCALE DIVISIONS and the "divisons" refer to the Major divisions, the big ticks, and the minor divisions, of which there are FIVE PER MAJOR DIVISION are indicated by "small ticks" across the white lines. As anyone who UNDERSTANDS an oscilloscope can tell you, ROSEMARY you willfully ignorant liar.

Of course it's nearly impossible to tell what is hooked up to what in that presentation ... just that there are errors.


The rest of her comments about my trace analysis are similarly... LIES.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 22, 2012, 05:36:13 PM
Well Counselor, since you are giving legal advice here.... what does your legal dictionary call it when a person seeks to obtain a monetary award under false pretenses, by making false claims and failing to provide supporting evidence of his claims?


I see you are hinting at fraud here, but fraud requires several specific elements.  I can only intelligently speak about Texas law, but I suspect many jurisdictions are similar.  One element is that the representation made must be false.  And I suppose the entire point of this thread is the debate on this topic, so I am not going to try to decide that one. 

But even if you can show that Rosemary's claims are false, and there seems to be much spirited debate on this matter, the other critical element as it applies to this case is that the defendant must know that the representation is false (or be very reckless about it).  So the question is, is Rosemary knowingly misleading anyone.  It appears to me that she is an earnest inventor trying to prove up claims she honestly believes are true.  I suspect you disagree, but proving it is another matter.


Oh, and another required element is that the plaintiff must rely on the false representation to its detriment.  I have not seen any of you actually rely on what Rosemary is saying.  You contest her claims every step of the way.  So I say, no fraud case here!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 22, 2012, 05:36:31 PM
Hi Cat,

What surprises me is the Quantum 2002 article was about a COP>17 thingamabob device ...... and now it's a COP INFINITY device she want to show in court that I copied and stole  ??  ODD .....   ???

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302)    Reply #1379 on: March 21, 2012, 11:08:59 PM

Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.    :o


Fuzzy
 ;)

Hi Fuzzy

I can hear the judge now........ Rosemary Ainslie you are a delusional fantasist who will be sentence to........

Yes you can serve time in prison for making false claims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030532/Plastic-para-fantasist-spent-years-claiming-hero-soldier-despite-serving-cook-jailed-fraud.html
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 05:48:05 PM
@eatenbyagrue: Rosemary certainly knows that her claim of infinite COP is bogus. Why else does she resist doing the very simple tests that I and others have suggested? If I believed that I had something like that, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would perform the test I suggested, at least, immediately to end all controversy about it.
What would you do? Would you continually argue falsely as she has done, or would you simply PUT THE SIMPLE COMPONENTS TOGETHER and DO AN UNAMBIGUOUS TEST of the battery recharging. It's something any smart tenth-grader in a Houston high school could do in a week as a science fair project.


This is the only way Rosemary can "win" any of her arguments: by attrition. Eventually, she outlasts them all by driving them nuts with her denial of reality, they fade away or the thread gets closed, and Rosemary moves on to another group of hopeful experimenters to sucker into wasting their time with her false claims, math errors, and reversals of reality, like she's tried to do with THE GREEN TRACE on her OWN VIDEO.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 22, 2012, 05:59:03 PM
If I believed that I had something like that, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would perform the test I suggested, at least, immediately to end all controversy about it.


Oh come on, what would be the fun in that?  You know how these tests go with overunity devices.  They never go well, and then it's over.  The joy is in the ride, not the destination, so give the circuit a little more time to smell the roses.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 06:19:28 PM
eatenbyagrue said, "Oh, and another required element is that the plaintiff must rely on the false representation to its detriment.  I have not seen any of you actually rely on what Rosemary is saying.  You contest her claims every step of the way.  So I say, no fraud case here!"

But... don't you understand the nature of FuzzyTomCat's involvement with Rosemary? It sure looks to me like he relied on Rosemary's false representations to his detriment. And that's just one example. Go over to Energetic Forum and ask Ashtweth about his involvement, and whether or not it was to his detriment. Examples abound of people trying to PROVE HER RIGHT.... and failing. Of course the scientific method consists mainly of trying to prove hypotheses WRONG.... and every test of Rosemary's "hypotheses" concerning this circuit have proven them to be wrong.

Of course by now we don't even know what the circuit even IS anymore, due to her errors which FTC and I have pointed out. Look at the VIDEO....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc
.... Rosemary's team posted. Look carefully ! The diagram shown on paper isn't the circuit demonstrated; the demonstrated circuit even has errors; as far as I can tell I am the only one who has tested many different possible variants. The consensus seems to be that the Q1-Q2 mosfet circuit is "actually" what is built in that video... but now I have my questions even about that, since the gate of the single mosfet is connected to the point marked "F" on the board, which is the common drains indicated on the paper diagram..... how many different ways is that wrong? I've lost count.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 06:25:31 PM

Oh come on, what would be the fun in that?  You know how these tests go with overunity devices.  They never go well, and then it's over.  The joy is in the ride, not the destination, so give the circuit a little more time to smell the roses.

You are right about that. The problem in the present case is that the circuit and claims have been "riding" for ten years now, since the original Quantum article and circuit posted above in the thread somewhere. The circuit has "smelled the roses" and has gotten Rosemary banned from, since I've been following her, the Naked Scientists forum, the Energetic Forum (panacea u), this forum several times, and maybe more that I'm not aware of.  Like I said, she simply wears down her detractors... like me, I have to leave to go to work half an hour ago, but I need to refute her constant LIES about me, and it's getting rather old. YEARS of smelling those old roses growing out of the garbage. If only they were roses, instead of nettles.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 22, 2012, 06:57:21 PM
Poynt,
 
You asked for general input to determine reasonable test parameters, I offered some in good faith. If this upset you in some way I apologise.

 
You replied to them with agreement that the test is not to test the claim of COP = infinity.

 
I just want to know why you are redefining the claim to declare a winner at 50% over control ?

 
The claim on record as made by Rosemary is COP = infinity, as everyone knows.

 
A simple proof of an apparent anomaly is to turn it on and leave it alone, so why are you testing something else ?

 
RM :)

evolvingape,

Yes any and all constructive input is welcome, thanks.

Why does it seem we are not going to evaluate the original claim of COP infinity?

You will have to ask Rosemary that question.

I don't think the claim to be tested has yest been FIRMLY established, and it will need to be before we can go forward in a serious manner.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 07:07:18 PM
Sorry about the tone of those videos.... I was embroiled in a discussion much like this one... the builders at Energetic Forum eventually  became so frustrated with Rosemary that she was banned under most acrimonious circumstances there and NONE of the enthusiastic builders and experimenters who believed in her at first could confirm her claims about overunity performance of that circuit (the "Quantum Magazine" circuit.) It's very frustrating to have to do this kind of remedial education with people who "think" they know it all but are mostly wrong.

Hello guys,
This one's rich.  'Remedial education' no less.  That's a new way to phrase it.  I was actually banned because Harvey Gramm complained to the admin at energetic forum for my implicit criticism of him when I wrote... 'If anyone ever presumes to know everything there is to know about Ed Leedskalnin - then they would need to duplicate the miracle of Coral Castle to prove it'... or words to that effect.  And this because Harvey Gramm went on record.  He intruded into our new thread about Ed's work and stated 'I can explain everything there is to know about Ed Leedskalnin' ... or words to that effect. He also claimed - when I posted there - that I was 'dogging his footsteps'.  I ask you?  LOL

Guys, MileHigh says I write LOL when I'm feeling nervous.  He's wrong.  But I think when I write LOL I actually mean something closer to  'PLEASE' or 'I ASK YOU' or 'WHAT A JOKE'.  Perhaps I should just develop my own internet speak.  Actually I've tried this.  Here and there.  But they never seem to be as satisfactory as the actual written phrase.  I'm probably just way too old.  But LOL certainly seems to cover all shades.  Perhaps I'm presuming too heavily on nuance.  And I love MileHigh's lololololol.  I think that's the possibly most appropriate here. So here goes.  LOLOLOLOL

But I absolutely do NOT indulge in reckless traducement.  It's just NOT my style. Nor ever has been.  What is true is that our claim has been somewhat contentious and seems to generate a certain extreme polarity of opinion.  Fortunately the more extreme 'against' are always such utterly nasty people - that I'd be rather sorry and very ashamed to have them approve of me or of our technology.  Fortunately they don't.  I get the distinct impression that I'm like one of those Christian martyrs being fed to the lions.  And the troll - like the lion - has no intellect and no reason.  Only an appetite for the kill.  So.  With that analogy then let me explain something.  I would prefer it that there was some subtlety of intellect come into the equation.  Then - at least - there'd be something - some level of engagement - to engross us all.  I think I'd prefer some gladiatorial combat.  I'm certainly old and I'm also unschooled - but I suspect that on that level - then I'd have no competition at all.  As it is TK doesn't even understand the implications of that oscillation.  The less said about Glen's ability to argue the better.  And Evolving Ape is trying very hard to supplement his argument with a multi line spacing - that he can at least give his posts great length as he cannot manage either good sense or gravitas. 

I must say though - I'm awfully grateful that Harti's sticking to his word and allowing this thread.  But I'm worried that it may be because he's also relying on this public butchering.  He's our Nero - hosting the games.  Surely not?  Surely he'd promote fair play?  OR.  Perhaps he sees this as being 'fair'.  Anyway.  I think we've all had enough 'speculation'.  It's all the trolls can ever manage and at the risk of indulging some tautology  - I think we've had an ample surfeit. That 'speculative misrepresentation' which is the politest of all possible descriptions of their treatment of our circuit - our technology - and little old me.  :'(

Kindest regards guys.  Perhaps eventually TK et al will post something both interesting and appropriate.  I'm looking forward to it. Only because I'm afflicted with way too much optimism.

Rosemary

Edited.
Adjusted the spacing behind an apostrophe and added a minor qualification for clarity.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 07:55:17 PM
I find your obsession with Fuzzy as ridiculous as your stubbornness to carrying on regardless with your claim,
despite all the credible evidence against you, very few people even come to your defence and the majority of the ones that do are suspiciously new members.

I note from your response that you avoided the second part of my post, so here it is again.
How strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

And as for this.  It seems that Powercat thinks that IGNORING Glen Lettenmaier's multiple half-page posts indicates some kind of obsession?  He's only ever captured my interest on the promise of taking action against me.  I welcome it and have ably assisted by giving him a service address.

And there are MANY who support our claim.  How can they not?  It's been demonstrated - widely.  Not only this new circuit but the previous.  I've listed the number.  And they include very substantial players, including BP, ABB Research, SASOL, SPESCOM - and on and on.  TK likes to deny this because I don't post their names or proof of this.  But I keep pointing out that Quantum would hardly have published without first checking that accreditation.  And if their accreditation was bogus, if reference to their accreditation -  constituted a misrepresentation then I'm reasonably satisfied that I'd have had to face a call to 'retract' or face Court proceedings.  I'm too old and too well bitten to flirt with any level of misrepresentation.  He also seems to think that Professor Gaunt could not POSSIBLY have rejected a bursary award from SASOL.  Well.  As difficult as it may be to believe - it's also the truth.  There are those players who are INTIMATELY aware of both the offer and the rejection.  Presumably if they need to deny this it would be better that they first check their facts.

Regards to you powercat.  Your contributions are invaluable.  It gives me opportunity to reference some lesser known facts.
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 08:54:08 PM
Again, guys, at the risk of getting this subject on topic,

We have included a test in our paper that is consistent with the evidence in that download of TK's.  But it's not the correct download.  I'll try and find the LeCroy download when I'm done here.  If you look at the orange trace you'll see that the there is absolutely no battery draw down during the 'on phase' of the switching cycle.  The switch is shown on the blue trace.  When the switching cycle changes to its second phase of the duty cycle - when the battery is effectively disconnected, then only does the oscillation kick in. 

Now.  One must assume that the positive half of each of those oscillations comes from the battery supply.  IF this was the case, then equally, there must be some path for that current to flow.  Now.  We know that the signal at the gate of Q2 is positive.  In which case it would certainly enable a positive current discharge from the supply.  BUT.  For current to flow from the battery supply it would need to discharge that current flow to the battery supply source rail.  And it can't get there - other than through the the Gate of Q1 - because it's connected DIRECTLY to that leg.  Again.  The source leg of the Q2 MOSFET is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE of Q1.  And Q1 has an applied NEGATIVE SIGNAL.  It cannot 'breach' that signal.  So no sooner is the current discharged from the battery during this phase - when it is blocked at the only available outlet.  Therefore there is no path for the discharge of current during this period.  The circuit is effectively open to the battery as the battery cannot discharge any current flow.

That's the point of this entire argument and the intention of our paper.  We resolve the 'path' that would enable that positive half of each phase of each oscillation.   I'll get back here.  I need to post that waveform.  And I then want to propose our solution - in the hopes that there are more of you than just Poynty Point who can wrap their minds around this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I've chosen two downloads from two different tests.  The first is to show you some of the extreme range of current flow enabled notwithstanding the fact that no energy is delivered under closed conditions.  I unfortunately didn't do an waveform detail.  But I've included a download of the typical oscillation in the next download.  Hopefully it'll work.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
This is an earlier exercise that I did to resolve the 'paths'.  If this is correct then it also tells us exactly what all this hidden energy is.  Again.  For those of you who can wrap there minds around this - this is the entire thesis - in a nutshell.  Which may seem insignificant.  But for those of you with insight into these matters this is huge.  I'm confident that TK will entirely miss the point here.  Which is why this conversation needs to move to POYNTY.  TK hasn't got the intellectual wherewith all to understand this.  Sadly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Which guys, means this.

To keep this readable - BV = battery voltage - BC = battery current. 
Conversely RV = resistor voltage - RC = resistor current.

1 BC is positive -  clockwise              -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this >>>>> GREATER ZERO
. potential difference transferred to RV
. discharge of potential difference from BV

2 RC is negative - counterclockwise   +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this <<<<< LESS THAN ZERO
. potential difference transferred to BV
. discharge of potential difference from RV

3 RC is positive - clockwise               +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this >>>>>>GREATER THAN ZERO
 . potential difference transferred from RV
. recharge of potential difference at BV

This would resolve the problem.  Effectively we're proposing that the discharge of energy in that 3rd phase is coincident with the positive half of each oscillation.  And that it 'leads' with a negative charge.  Which would explain the path for that oscillation as the charge bias of the current would then be in synch with the polarity bias' of the MOSFETS.

In any event guys.  That's what we're proposing.  I hope that's clear.  Effectively all that has happened is that the element resistor becomes the supply source and it's voltages are the mirror opposite of the battery supply.  LOL  It's difficult to explain.  But it's just SO SIMPLE.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 09:16:03 PM
And to round off the example - here's a diagrammatic presentation of the actual connections around that Q-array.

Kindest again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 22, 2012, 09:39:49 PM
And as for this.  It seems that Powercat thinks that IGNORING Glen Lettenmaier's multiple half-page posts indicates some kind of obsession?   

Yes it is an obsession of yours we have seen many times over the years, You keep saying that Fuzzy support your  claims,  he denies it, you ignore him, so you get from him multiple half-page post, so don't try to make out it's something new, it's been going on for years and it is on record

And there are MANY who support our claim.  How can they not?  It's been demonstrated - widely.  Not only this new circuit but the previous. 

I am sure you believe that, So where are the many supporters of your claim ? It looks like most of them have deserted you a long time ago.
Just because you have demonstrated something doesn't make it any more real, In the same way that a magician does .

 
I've listed the number.  And they include very substantial players, including BP, ABB Research, SASOL, SPESCOM - and on and on.

Receiving a standardised response letter from big companies is not difficult and you have already given your excuse for not publishing them......... How convenient
so we get back to Fuzzy as the only one (you say) supports your claim.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 09:48:26 PM
Yes it is an obsession of yours we have seen many times over the years, You keep saying that Fuzzy support your  claims,  he denies it, you ignore him, so you get from him multiple half-page post, so don't try to make out it's something new, it's been going on for years and it is on record
I say nothing of the sort.  Glen Lettenmaier - aka Fuzzytomcat advises us all via his scribd account - that he WHOLLY supports our COP>17 claim.

I am sure you believe that, So where are the many supporters of your claim ? It looks like most of them have deserted you a long time ago. Just because you have demonstrated something doesn't make it any more real, In the same way that a magician does.
Then you must accuse Glen Lettenmaier of this.  Not me.  Our accredictors took the trouble to REPLICATE the tests for themselves or were 'hands on' in their own applied measurement parameters.

Receiving a standardised response letter from big companies is not difficult and you have already given your excuse for not publishing them......... How convenient
When does a company produce a standardised response to say 'yes you may use our names as accreditors of your experimental evidence'?  What would be standard about any such reply - assuming that ever was the reply? 

so we get back to Fuzzy as the only one (you say) supports your claim.
I do not claim anything of the sort.  AGAIN  Glen Lettenmaier states that he has replicated our COP>17 experiment.  Nothing to do with me.

How many ways do you want this stated powercat?  I'm happy to try them all.  Because every time I do so then they remind our readers about Glen's replication.  And it cannot be said too often.  I've already said this.  Your contributions to this thread are invaluable.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 22, 2012, 10:14:18 PM
How many times Rosemary, time for a repost.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../msg315246/#msg315246)

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"


May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29)
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 10:51:05 PM
How many times Rosemary, time for a repost.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../msg315246/#msg315246)

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"


May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29)
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.


I am well aware of this reference.  It is a perfect example not only of the level of Glen Lettenmaier's lack of profressionalism but your endorsement of this lack.  I rely on this evidence. Like I said earlier - this thread is over populated with trolls.  Would that there were a brain between you.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 11:02:26 PM
I say nothing of the sort.  Glen Lettenmaier - aka Fuzzytomcat advises us all via his scribd account - that he WHOLLY supports our COP>17 claim.
Then you must accuse Glen Lettenmaier of this.  Not me.  Our accredictors took the trouble to REPLICATE the tests for themselves or were 'hands on' in their own applied measurement parameters.
When does a company produce a standardised response to say 'yes you may use our names as accreditors of your experimental evidence'?  What would be standard about any such reply - assuming that ever was the reply? 
I do not claim anything of the sort.  AGAIN  Glen Lettenmaier states that he has replicated our COP>17 experiment.  Nothing to do with me.

How many ways do you want this stated powercat?  I'm happy to try them all.  Because every time I do so then they remind our readers about Glen's replication.  And it cannot be said too often.  I've already said this.  Your contributions to this thread are invaluable.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary .....

Your a fucking liar ....

I do not and never have supported a COP>17 claim of yours. Show me PROOF where I did support your COP>17 claim ..... liar

I have never made a CLAIM of a COP>17 ever no where.  Show me the PROOF where I did claim a COP>17 ...... liar

The IEEE SCRIBD pre-print of the preliminary results has nothing to with my final evaluation of a modified Quantum 2002 circuit ..... it's here you fucking liar !!!! OH, that's right you can't fucking read can you ROSEMARY !!!

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746     05-02-2010, 09:23 AM

I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development"  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment) channel on
the
January 9, 2010  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df) 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that
many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the
recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the
Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in   Test #13    (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E313%5E_11-26-09.zip) which was used in the IEEE submittal
 Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems  (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems) the team including yourself did, and
in   Test #22  (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E322%5E_02-05-10.zip) but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members
and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid
or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has
a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately
for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054
these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting
or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to
record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need
to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a   Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers  (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/psdetails.lotr?ct=PS&cs=psu&ci=13394&lc=EN) from Tektronix or some other method to
verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the
preferred mode of operation.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 02:04:06 AM
Rosemary .....Your a fucking liar ....I do not and never have supported a COP>17 claim of yours. Show me PROOF where I did support your COP>17 claim ..... liar I have never made a CLAIM of a COP>17 ever no where.  Show me the PROOF where I did claim a COP>17 ...... liar The IEEE SCRIBD pre-print of the preliminary results has nothing to with my final evaluation of a modified Quantum 2002 circuit ..... it's here you fucking liar !!!! OH, that's right you can't fucking read can you ROSEMARY !!!

Guys,

Not only does our Glen Lettenmaier use the rather limited range of expletives enjoyed by your average low life criminal sociopath - but it seems that he's suffering from the same complete lack of understanding of principle.  Could someone else perhaps explain the significance of the following statement in his publication on his Scribd Account.  I don't think there's anything ambiguous here.  And he claims UNDER OATH to the scribd authorities that this is exclusively his work.  Here's a direct transcript.

The opening paragraph stipulates that ...The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonatingfrequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Resultsindicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest) published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical  magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate  the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.
 
Until he withdraws this then he's on record.  He does, MOST ASSUREDLY, claim a replication of our earlier COP>17 test.  Should he withdraw that publication then he would be entitled to deny that it's a replication.  Then I can reclaim ownership of my own work and publish that paper on my own account.  And he will then have yet more grounds to sue me.  As I've mentioned - I would welcome this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 02:26:48 AM
Guys,

Not only does our Glen Lettenmaier used the rather limited range of expletives enjoyed by your average low life criminal sociopath - but it seems that he's suffering from the same complete lack of understanding of principle.  Could someone else perhaps explain the significance of the following statement in his publication on his Scribd Account.  I don't think there's anything ambiguous here.  And he claims UNDER OATH to the scribd authorities that this is exclusively his work.  Here's a direct transcript.

The opening paragraph stipulates that ...The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonatingfrequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Resultsindicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest) published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical  magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate  the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.
 
Until he withdraws this then he's on record.  He does, MOST ASSUREDLY, claim a replication of our earlier COP>17 test.  Should he withdraw that publication then he would be entitled to deny that it's a replication.  Then I can reclaim ownership of my own work and publish that paper on my own account.  And he will then have yet more grounds to sue me.  As I've mentioned - I would welcome this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary ....

You just don't "GET IT" .....

ROSEMARY"S  EXAMPLE -

The EARTH was believed to be "FLAT" and the center of the "UNIVERSE" ...... this is incorrect and all documents world wide "MUST BE DESTROYED" with no trace of anything ever being written.

Let's make this simple for even a "GRADE" school child, so prove you can fucking read ROSEMARY !!

There are two dates shown in GREEN.

1) Which is the FIRST date ?

2) Which is the SECOND date ?

3) Which order are the DATES in and the FORUM THREADS NAMES or LINKS ?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
( attached "DOWNLOAD" - 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf  ) 

PAGE NUMBER 1

Manuscript received Dec 1, 2009. This work was supported entirely as a global open source project by independent persons oriented toward its success

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746)     05-02-2010, 09:23 AM

I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the  "Open Source Research and Development"  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment) channel on
the  January 9, 2010  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df) 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that
many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the
recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the
Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in   Test #13    (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E313%5E_11-26-09.zip) which was used in the IEEE submittal
 Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems  (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems) the team including yourself did, and
in   Test #22  (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E322%5E_02-05-10.zip) but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members
and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid
or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has
a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately
for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054
these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting
or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to
record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need
to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a   Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers  (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/psdetails.lotr?ct=PS&cs=psu&ci=13394&lc=EN) from Tektronix or some other method to
verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the
preferred mode of operation.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 02:34:50 AM
Yet again, guys, someone needs to explain this to Glen Lettenmaier in some simple language that it seems I cannot manage.  Notwithstanding my best efforts.

The required procedure in the publication of anything at all is to stand by those numbers.  If, subsequent to publication - it becomes apparent that there has been any new evidence brought to bear that voids the evidence in that early publication - then the honourable procedure is to publish a retraction and withdraw any extant publications.  Anything short of this would lend credence to the claims in that publication that would also, thereby, mislead the public.

It would not matter if that publication was 10 years in advance of the actual dates.  It NEEDS MUST BE WITHDRAWN.  And until it's withdrawn it's considered to carry the endorsement of all those names of all the collaborators on that paper.  This includes, not only Glen Lettenmaier's name but that of Harvey Gramm, and Ashtweth Palise, both of whom have also joined forces with Glen to deny the evidence.

Sorry to impose,
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 02:38:40 AM
Yet again, guys, someone needs to explain this to Glen Lettenmaier in some simple language that it seems I cannot manage.  Notwithstanding my best efforts.

The required procedure in the publication of anything at all is to stand by those numbers.  If, subsequent to publication - it becomes apparent that there has been any new evidence brought to bear that voids the evidence in that early publication - then the honourable procedure is to publish a retraction and withdraw any extant publications.  Anything short of this would lend credence to the claims in that publication that would also, thereby, mislead the public.

It would not matter if that publication was 10 years in advance of the actual dates.  It NEEDS MUST BE WITHDRAWN.  And until it's withdrawn it's considered to carry the endorsement of all those names of all the collaborators on that paper.  This includes, not only Glen Lettenmaier's name but that of Harvey Gramm, and Ashtweth Palise, both of whom have also joined forces with Glen to deny the evidence.

Sorry to impose,
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

When you PROVE pigs fly Rosemary !!

 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 02:49:00 AM
When you PROVE pigs fly Rosemary !!

 :P

I rest my case.  Glen Lettenmaier is on record.  He most assuredly attests to those COP>17 numbers on an official Scribd Publication.  He has subsequently charged through my multiple threads to deny this.  But unless he withdraws that scribd publication he is contradicting himself. 

I am afraid that he lacks professionalism on any level at all.  Which disqualifies him from ever being a reliable experimentalist.  More's the pity.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And until he does withdraw that publication I am obliged to reference the fact that he most assuredly stands by his claim that he has replicated our COP>17 test.  How can I do otherwise?  If he denies this he is obliged to withdraw that publication.  And while he does not withdraw this then he is advertising a published account of his support of this.  He seems to think he can managed both statements and yet garner some credibility.  It just can't be done.

And please bear this in mind.  He advised Scribd authorities that the publication was exclusively his own work and that he had sole ownership of that paper.  Under all legal conditions a collaboration entitles any one of the authors to access and publish that work - provided only that they publish the names of all parties in that collaboration.  By rights he does not have exclusive ownership.  He shares that ownership with all parties to that paper.  And that he has alleged this ownership under oath, is a criminal misrepresentation and speaks to his intention to steal that work for his own account.  Confusingly he then assures me that he will sue me?  Not sure on what basis.  Perhaps it's because I've been in the happy position of proving his entire lack of principle.  That will be an interesting legal process - if it ever happens.  Because to compound these confusions - he then asks me to recommend an attorney for him.  And this in the face of his assurance that he consults a veritable team of attorneys in real time - while they prepare a class action against me.  Golly.  If I didn't know better I'd be impressed.

Sorry that's a rather long post script.
Again, regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 03:07:05 AM
I rest my case.  Glen Lettenmaier is on record.  He most assuredly attests to those COP>17 numbers on an official Scribd Publication.  He has subsequently charged through my multiple threads to deny this.  But unless he withdraws that scribd publication he is contradicting himself. 

I am afraid that he lacks professionalism on any level at all.  Which disqualifies him from ever being a reliable experimentalist.  More's the pity.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

PROFESSIONALISM !!!! YOU DARE !!!!

What do you call the person that is in the video showing a fraudulent device schematic that doesn't match the device in the video on your 12 MARCH 2011 COP>INFINITY demonstration ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&context=C4df8c7fADvjVQa1PpcFNjv7s5ksC81rpZH0j2XS94whqfUO0S5ao=

1) a idiot
2) a chump
3) a payed school boy following a script
4) all of the above

And what does this make you  ROSEMARY AINSLIE misrepresenting and falsify the device to everyone viewing the video and the "LIVE" demonstration ...... HOW LOW WILL YOU GO ??


ALL FOR A THESIS !!!

 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 03:14:23 AM
And guys, from hereon - I'll just go back to ignoring his posts.  Let him do his damnedest in those colourful posts of his that carry everything but originality, reasonable articulation, moderate and constrained use of language or even a trace of professionalism.  It is always a refreshing reminder of the caliber of the man which is nothing if not self-serving and utterly bereft of effective good sense or high principle.  I'll let you all know when we're in receipt of some communication from that 'team of attorneys' that he employs - to institute that 'class action'.  LOL

Regards again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 03:20:02 AM
And guys, from hereon - I'll just go back to ignoring his posts.  Let him do his damnedest in those colourful posts of his that carry everything but originality, reasonable articulation, moderate and constrained use of language or even a trace of professionalism.  It is always a refreshing reminder of the caliber of the man which is nothing if not self-serving and utterly bereft of effective good sense or high principle.  I'll let you all know when we're in receipt of some communication from that 'team of attorneys' that he employs - to institute that 'class action'.  LOL

Regards again,
Rosemary

YOUR A   "FRAUD"   ROSEMARY AINSLIE !!!!   JUST AS I SAID and PROVED !!!

 :P

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 05:03:37 AM
WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE IN THAT VIDEO ROSEMARY?????

And your little pencilled sketch is nonsense, as you were told the first time you posted it.
You really should learn how to draw a mosfet symbol if you want to communicate effectively with PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You are like a little girl blabbering in her own made-up language, expecting someone to give you a treat. It's not happening.

WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE IN THAT VIDEO? IF IT'S NOT THE COMMON DRAINS LIKE I SAID, and that you denied while insulting me and further lying >>> AND LIKE YOUR PRESENTER SAID >>>> then what is it?

Explain, while you are at it, why one of the EDGE pins, not the center, of the one mosfet in the video is CLEARLY CONNECTED to the point marked with a BIG BLACK LETTER "F" on the  pegboard? Huh? That is either the gate or the source of that mosfet. Yet the diagram clearly shows point "F" , monitored by channel 4 THE GREEN TRACE, is the common drains of the mosfets.

You are a Dolt. A Willfully ignorant arrogant dolt. And my evidence for the truth of that insult is in the video above and in your response to my analysis of the trace shown.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hoptoad on March 23, 2012, 07:36:23 AM
Perhaps I should just develop my own internet speak.
It's already done, its called voip or skype  :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 08:24:00 AM
It's already done, its called voip or skype  :P

Hello again hoptoad.  Always a pleasure to see you there.  I've actually being going through your posts which are vastly entertaining and impeccably succinct.  I think you set us all a good example.  Perhaps, given a few more years - I may also learn that art. I'm a notoriously slow learner.  Glad to see that you're keeping your comments appropriate.  I think any discussion would be vastly more relevant than the way the discussions on this thread are going.  And I know those links.  I have to reference them every time I read an acronym.  I fixate on alternatives that takes me ever more removes from reality.  And according to our trolls my own grasp of reality has always been somewhat tenuous.

The reason I went through your posts was that I seemed to recall you undertaking to do our circuit.  Did you get around to this?  If you've got the time or the interest - please let me know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 09:01:21 AM
Guys, I think this is the reference TK's asking me about.  If so, then I've said all I intend to say about this.  I certainly won't indulge him a free lesson in the art of waveform analysis - albeit much required.  In fact I'm not sure that there's any point in answering any of his posts ever.  I think he's guilty of egregious violations - all over the place.  Puts me in mind of Hitler.  Or Savonarola.  They were both rather self-righteous - and it's tediously inappropriate to a science forum.


Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

Actually guys.  That's as far as I want to go with this nonsense.  I cannot tell you how much it irritates me.  A complete time waster.  Yet again TK is presuming to give rational explanations when he actually hasn't a clue how that machine operates or what the technology shows.  It's rather disheartening.  And if I continued with this post it may even give the impression that anything he says can be taken seriously.  I think I must just go back to ignoring his input.  I trust you'll do the same.  Or if you do read it - then PLEASE.  Take it with somewhat more than a grain of salt.  He's winging it and he's propagandising.  It has NOTHING to do with science.  And even less to do with our technology.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 12:52:26 PM
SO. Guys,

Back to the topic.  Not sure how long I'll be able to enjoy this.  Here again is the diagram showing the actual connections of that eccentric Q-array.  This to show you that it is not possible for the battery to deliver energy during the period when Q2 has the applied positive signal that would otherwise 'close' that circuit and allow some current flow from the battery supply.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 01:04:31 PM
Liar. More garbage scope shots and garbage diagrams. Learn to communicate effectively ROSEMARY and stop lying.

Quotes from the video:

1) 0:20- "The circuit diagram before you is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup".... FALSE or TRUE, Rosemary? Anyone else want to give their opinion here?

2) 0:30: "What we have is 5 mosfets mounted in parallel"  FALSE

3) (( 0:42 THE SMOKING GUN. ))

4) 1:59: "C represents the input to the gates of the mosfet" as he gestures to the board... where the function generator is seen to be connected to point F by the red alligator clip.

5) 2:05:  "F WOULD BE THE DRAIN, THE COMMON DRAIN..."  Here corroborating ME, refuting YOU, and indicating the type of trace one would expect from a mosfet drain. YOU ARE A LIAR, ROSEMARY AINS-LIE.

6) 3:09  (stuttering a bit and mumbling) "we can see the battery voltage mumble mumble roughly sixty two volts, BEARING IN MIND we have 5 twelve volt batteries so theoretically we should have'bout sixty volts but thats.... mumble."

That's another lie, is what he's trying to say.

Of course we know that a fully charged 12 volt battery of this type should measure well over 13 volts so the stack of five should be at about 65 volts if it were fully charged. The fact that the meter indicates 62 volts isn't as much of a mystery to me as it evidently is to the presenter.

7) 3:53:  "AND THE GREEN of course the actual drain, drainback (mumbles) .. the the drain voltage." Here corroborating ME, refuting YOU, and indicating the type of trace one would expect from a mosfet drain. YOU ARE A LIAR, ROSEMARY AINS-LIE.


It looks like your presenter agrees with ME, not you, ROSEMARY, and since we can hear your voice in the background prompting him in several places.... we must wonder why you didn't correct his little "mistake" at that time.

I'll stop here but as anyone WHO LOOKS AND LISTENS can find out FOR THEMSELVES, there is much more that is objectionable in that video.


WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE, ROSEMARY??? Either your presenter is lying and/or you are. I suspect both. The evidence is right there in YOUR OWN VIDEO and your statements here.

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

and here's what Rosemary said about the green trace in response to my analysis:


Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 01:55:41 PM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../msg316320/#msg316320)<blockquote>
Quote

Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

Actually guys.  That's as far as I want to go with this nonsense.  I cannot tell you how much it irritates me.  A complete time waster.  Yet again TK is presuming to give rational explanations when he actually hasn't a clue how that machine operates or what the technology shows.  It's rather disheartening.  And if I continued with this post it may even give the impression that anything he says can be taken seriously.  I think I must just go back to ignoring his input.  I trust you'll do the same.  Or if you do read it - then PLEASE.  Take it with somewhat more than a grain of salt.  He's winging it and he's propagandising.  It has NOTHING to do with science.  And even less to do with our technology.
</blockquote>

What is it then,  if it's not the drain signal, ROSEMARY?

Now, these lies of yours have really got to stop. You need help. You are suffering a major disconnect from reality. Time after time you have been PROVEN to have made incorrect or frankly LYING statements about factual issues that are easily checkable. There are so many that I can't even begin to detail them. Your claim of all those companies who "endorsed" your earlier circuit--- and for which you have NEVER been able to provide ANY evidence--- are probably like your interpretation of Powercat's "endorsement" of your garbage BS earlier: they are all in your mind and exactly OPPOSITE of the true state.

"And even less to do with our technology." And yet .... it is what you claim PROVES your technology, it appears in a video DEMONSTRATING your technology as evidence for your claims, and you keep referring to these "scope traces" and you even publish another shot from the LeCroy-- a totally uninformative shot that YOU cannot even interpret.

You are a liar, and not even a very good one, because the EVIDENCE OF YOUR LIES is right under everybody's noses and you don't even have the wit to cover it up or correct it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 01:17:48 PM
Guys,  I think TK's referring to this post of mine but is rather reluctant to cut and paste it.  Not sure why.  Here it is again, in any event.  I'll try and get back on topic hereafter.  He seems rather anxious to prevent me pointing out certain facts about this circuit which I think speaks to his agenda.  The sad truth is he hardly understands the significance of these or any waveforms.  He doesn't have the insight of some other members here and certainly NOT of our readers.  What's particularly pathetic is that he seems to blame me for his own intellectual lack.  Not sure that I'm responsible.  The joke is that I'm meant to be the beginner here.  And the real joke is that I really am.  Doesn't say much about his abilities I'd have thought.  :o

Regards,
Rosemary

And as for this.  It seems that Powercat thinks that IGNORING Glen Lettenmaier's multiple half-page posts indicates some kind of obsession?  He's only ever captured my interest on the promise of taking action against me.  I welcome it and have ably assisted by giving him a service address.

And there are MANY who support our claim.  How can they not?  It's been demonstrated - widely.  Not only this new circuit but the previous.  I've listed the number.  And they include very substantial players, including BP, ABB Research, SASOL, SPESCOM - and on and on.  TK likes to deny this because I don't post their names or proof of this.  But I keep pointing out that Quantum would hardly have published without first checking that accreditation.  And if their accreditation was bogus, if reference to their accreditation -  constituted a misrepresentation then I'm reasonably satisfied that I'd have had to face a call to 'retract' or face Court proceedings.  I'm too old and too well bitten to flirt with any level of misrepresentation.  He also seems to think that Professor Gaunt could not POSSIBLY have rejected a bursary award from SASOL.  Well.  As difficult as it may be to believe - it's also the truth.  There are those players who are INTIMATELY aware of both the offer and the rejection.  Presumably if they need to deny this it would be better that they first check their facts.

Regards to you powercat.  Your contributions are invaluable.  It gives me opportunity to reference some lesser known facts.
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 01:25:49 PM
Guys, hopefully this is still on the same page.  Here's that path analysis again.  Which I'll elaborate on next - assuming I'm not side tracked by TK's rather desperate efforts to get this thread back OFF its topic.

This is an earlier exercise that I did to resolve the 'paths'.  If this is correct then it also tells us exactly what all this hidden energy is.  Again.  For those of you who can wrap there minds around this - this is the entire thesis - in a nutshell.  Which may seem insignificant.  But for those of you with insight into these matters this is huge.  I'm confident that TK will entirely miss the point here.  Which is why this conversation needs to move to POYNTY.  TK hasn't got the intellectual wherewith all to understand this.  Sadly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Which guys, means this.

To keep this readable - BV = battery voltage - BC = battery current. 
Conversely RV = resistor voltage - RC = resistor current.

1 BC is positive -  clockwise              -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this >>>>> GREATER ZERO
. potential difference transferred to RV
. discharge of potential difference from BV

2 RC is negative - counterclockwise   +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this <<<<< LESS THAN ZERO
. potential difference transferred to BV
. discharge of potential difference from RV

3 RC is positive - clockwise               +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this >>>>>>GREATER THAN ZERO
 . potential difference transferred from RV
. recharge of potential difference at BV

This would resolve the problem.  Effectively we're proposing that the discharge of energy in that 3rd phase is coincident with the positive half of each oscillation.  And that it 'leads' with a negative charge.  Which would explain the path for that oscillation as the charge bias of the current would then be in synch with the polarity bias' of the MOSFETS.

In any event guys.  That's what we're proposing.  I hope that's clear.  Effectively all that has happened is that the element resistor becomes the supply source and it's voltages are the mirror opposite of the battery supply.  LOL  It's difficult to explain.  But it's just SO SIMPLE.

What I'm going to try and do hereafter is make this clearer - or at least give it my best shot.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 01:32:33 PM
Rosemary,

YOUR A FRAUD !!!

YOUR VIDEO IS A FRAUD !!!

YOUR ENTIRE DATA SUBMITTED IS FRAUDULENT !!!

GO AWAY !!! YOU HAVE NO SUPPORTERS HERE OR ANY WHERE !!!

IT'S ALL ABOUT A THESIS !!! YOUR FUCKING PATHETIC !!!



 :P



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 23, 2012, 01:39:28 PM
Rosemary:

Quote
Guys,  I think TK's referring to this post of mine but is rather reluctant to cut and paste it.  Not sure why.  Here it is again, in any event.  I'll try and get back on topic hereafter.  He seems rather anxious to prevent me pointing out certain facts about this circuit which I think speaks to his agenda.  The sad truth is he hardly understands the significance of these or any waveforms.  He doesn't have the insight of some other members here and certainly NOT of our readers.  What's particularly pathetic is that he seems to blame me for his own intellectual lack.  Not sure that I'm responsible.  The joke is that I'm meant to be the beginner here.  And the real joke is that I really am.  Doesn't say much about his abilities I'd have thought.

So you are in attack mode now.  Pretend that you are an intellectual powerhouse and the other people in the thread are halfwits and the majority of the readership is with you.

The sad truth is that it's you simply doesn't understand the significance of your waveforms and the limitations of your measurement methods.  It's truly pathetic that you refuse alternative ways of making measurements because a good scientist would welcome these proposals.  The LEDs of Doom have already indicated that your circuit is under unity.  Someone made reference to the fact that some capacitor tests were already done and they drained, showing again that your circuit is under unity.

Once in a while you make reference to Lawrence and call him a "poor soul" stating that he is deluded and we should all have pity on him.  You are the same or even worse than Lawrence Rosemary.  The two of you are sad peas in a deluded pod.

If you only could see how ridiculous and nonsensical this whole business is.  But alas, you are yet another poor deluded soul that ultimately we should all have pity on, clinging to your incorrect DSO measurements for life.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 01:50:39 PM
Hello MileHigh,

I have never pretended anything at all - certainly not related to my intellect.  Golly.  I'm well aware of my limitations.  I'm just pointing out that my own limitations are patently and considerably less limited than TK's.  Or for that matter Glen Lettenmaier's.  I can't compare yours because I've never been exposed to a compelling argument.  When I am I'll let you know.  For the most part I skim your posts.  But I always appreciate your little contributions here MileHigh.  You're a dedicated kind of troll with the real merit of a really comfortable writing style which has marginally less abuse that TK and Glen indulge.  But all such helps the general cause. 

Take care of yourself
Rosie Pose.

Rosemary:

So you are in attack mode now.  Pretend that you are an intellectual powerhouse and the other people in the thread are halfwits and the majority of the readership is with you.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 02:02:48 PM
I can't believe that Rosemary even admitted her submitted academic papers were a fraudulent work that has incorrect device schematics and still hasn't retracted them, even after admitting there wrong !!!


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 23, 2012, 02:11:19 PM
All,

When Rosemary can find two academics and get them on-board with the testing, the winner will unmistakably rear its head, and all debate shall be put to rest.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 02:28:36 PM
The ONLY sad thing about this is when ROSEMARY'S grand children grow up and use a computer .... They "GOOGLE" their grandmas name ..... and see she was a fraud.

The pain of all pains  :'(


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 02:30:19 PM
I have just confirmed with our attorneys.  No papers yet from Glen Lettenmaier.   :o ::) I got the distinct impression he mentioned he'd sent something.  But then again he claimed I'd only sent him a post box number.  Which - to put it politely - is not consistent with the fact.  Here again is that address that you can all see how anxious I am that he is thoroughly enabled when it comes that class action of his.

Physical Address
Suite 2, Frazzitta Business Park
Cnr Lubbe & Langeberg Roads
Durbanville 7550
Postal Address
P.O.Box 3584
Durbanville 7551 

And Glen, feel free to access the email address as detailed in that PM Glen Lettenmaier.  It will be more than enough for these purposes.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 02:39:48 PM
All,

When Rosemary can find two academics and get them on-board with the testing, the winner will unmistakably rear its head, and all debate shall be put to rest.

Hello Poynty Point.  This is remarkably appropriate.  Well done for the reminder.  Much needed.  I've actually not even picked up a phone yet.  I'm busy fending of these rather toothless old lions - and it seems to take up much of my time.  What they lack in intelligence they rather make up for in number.  Collectively I believe it's described as being 'nibbled to death by a duck'.  Irritating but relatively painless.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
I have just confirmed with our attorneys.  No papers yet from Glen Lettenmaier.   :o ::) I got the distinct impression he mentioned he'd sent something.  But then again he claimed I'd only sent him a post box number.  Which - to put it politely - is not consistent with the fact.  Here again is that address that you can all see how anxious I am that he is thoroughly enabled when it comes that class action of his.

Physical Address
Suite 2, Frazzitta Business Park
Cnr Lubbe & Langeberg Roads
Durbanville 7550
Postal Address
P.O.Box 3584
Durbanville 7551 

And Glen, feel free to access the email address as detailed in that PM Glen Lettenmaier.  It will be more than enough for these purposes.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie


NICE TRY ROSIE ...

I'm waiting a response from Stefan on what action must be taken here ......

As I said over and over I'LL say it again, being you fucking cant read.

It will be done on my time table not yours .....


IT WILL BE AT LEAST A YEAR !!!


IDIOT !!!!

 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 03:02:50 PM
Please refer to the attached image ainslie_scopeanal1.jpg below. These notes apply to the indicated features of the scope trace.

1) The dashed line of the upper moveable cursor, at the top of the Trace 1 oscillations, at about 4 small ticks above the baseline, or about +800 mV
2) The bottom level of the Trace 1 (CVR) signal, at about 3 1/2 small ticks below the CH 1 baseline, or about -700 mV-- it would have been very nice to have the bottom moveable cursor positioned here instead of at some useless place on the bottom of the screen.
3) The CH 3 voltage level, at just over 6 minor ticks above its baseline (4), indicating battery voltage of just over +60 volts (50 volts per major division, five minor ticks per major division, so 6 small ticks = 60 volts.)
4) The CH 3 zero volts baseline symbol.
5) The CH 2 baseline zero volts symbol. CH 2 represents the Gate signal. The channel is set to 2 volts per major division.
6) The oscillation mean amplitude on CH 2. Oscillates around a value 5 minor ticks BELOW the baseline, or - 2 volts. The peaks go from about -1 to about -2 1/2 volts or a bit more. Either the mosfets ARE NOT GETTING ENOUGH CHARGE to switch, AND/OR the FG's output voltage is being pulled down by the low impedance of the circuit.

EDIT TO ADD: I at first thought that the negative pulse would mean that only the Q2 mosfets (edit, sorry) in the corrected circuit diagram would switch. But by experimentation I found that, with offset settings of the FG combined with the load caused by the circuit's connections, the mosfets could switch at the "zero" INDICATED level of the FG's output if the amplitude was set high enough. I think this is because of the current path through the FG's impedance. My FG has a 50 ohm impedance, but the data sheet for the INSTEK GFG-8216A ,which I believe is the unit in Rosemary's video, has something I don't understand where the impedance should be listed: www.tequipment.net/pdf/Instek/GFG-8216A_datasheet.pdf (http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/Instek/GFG-8216A_datasheet.pdf).

7) The baseline  but NOT zero volt level for the DRAIN TRACE, scope CH 4. Since this trace is AC coupled and at 100 volts/div we don't know what the voltage level actually is here, but we can tell that the oscillations on the drain go about 6 or seven minor ticks, for a peaktopeak swing of 70 volts, being generous. This trace "should" be sitting on top of the battery voltage; in other words, had DC coupling been used and if there was enough screen room, we'd see the straightline average of this trace sitting at 60 volts above its zero level.
8 ) The display box indicating the channel sensitivities in volts PER major scale division.
9) The scope is attempting to calculate parameters of a very FAST signal from a SLOW display. It may be using its full sample rate to do this, or it may not. The slight negative value here is what Rosemary THINKS is confirmation of her conjecture that the batteries are recharging... a "reversed current flow". Actually it is no such thing at all, as many people have tried to explain to Rosemary.
10) The volts per division setting for CH 4, the GREEN trace, the common DRAIN trace.
11) The symbol indicating that this channel is AC COUPLED.
12) The scope here is complaining about the NOISE on the signal of CH 3, the battery voltage, the purple trace, indicating that it cannot get a reliable reading because of the NOISE.
13) The horizontal timebase setting: 40 milliseconds PER major horizontal scale division. This of course applies to the whole display.
14) The SCALE DIVISIONS. Major and minor ticks across these white lines indicate voltage and time according to the settings PER major division. These are extended to a grid across the whole screen, which unfortunately the presenters chose not to display.
15) The trigger setting: Trigger on CH 2, as is proper, at a rising slope of signal, at a level of 1.52 volts. Here again we see evidence that the FG is being loaded down by the circuit, I think, because the signal never gets to + 1.52 volts on the trace, yet the scope is triggering stably. Or... a possibility I just considered... maybe the display is stopped. The LeCroy in the video, connected in parallel, certainly is NOT triggering stably.
16) The dashed line of the bottom horizontal moveable cursor, in a useless location on the screen
17) The cursor data box, showing the "delta t" between the two vertical cursors, which are correctly positioned across one full waveform. So a frequency of 1 cycle PER 100 milliseconds translates to 10 Hz.. that is, ten cycles PER second.... which is very slow in my opinion, and makes the 1.5 MHz oscillations look like nothing more than a big blur.
18) A "minor" or small "tick" or scale division on the vertical scale.
19) A "major" or big tick or scale division on the vertical scale.
20) The righthand vertical moveable cursor.
21) The lefthand vertical moveable cursor.
22) The scope's trigger point in time.
23) The small blue arrow indicates the scope's trigger voltage and channel. What's triggering it? The blue trace never gets this high. Is the Tek scope smarter than its users? In this case, I think it is... or either it could be simply stopped, displaying a static screen... which might be another little mendacity of the video.

Note that you have NEVER seen an explanation like this of ANY scope traces that Rosemary has provided. And that's because she doesn't bother to understand what's being shown. This scope trace, far from being the "evidence" for overunity, is rather another nail in the coffin of Rosemary's claims.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 03:05:29 PM
Guys,
I rather suspect that Glen Lettenmaier has not actually got that team of attorneys to attend to this class action.  In fact I'd be inclined to suspect that it was all just a rather empty threat.  Otherwise he needs to find himself a new set of attorneys.  Because a year is far in excess of what's required.  His complaint - though rather confusing - is clear.  He has stolen our paper through the simple expediency of stating under oath that the Scribd publication is his exclusive property and work.  And for this he needs must bring a class action to bear against me to assert his sole rights to access and publish that paper.  I'd say it would take all of about an hour and an attorney's clerk to manage the paper work.  Frankly Glen, I get the distinct impression that your own team of attorneys are simply not taking you seriously enough.  If I were in your shoes I'd sack them.  Find a new team.  But DON'T expect me to nominate them for you.  It's not acceptable protocol.  In fact I think it would be construed as 'prejudicial'?  Something like that.  LOL.  Certainly not usual practice for the Defendant to nominate the Plaintif's attorney.  Never heard the like.  ::) :o

Rosie Pose.   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 03:15:45 PM
Guys,
I rather suspect that Glen Lettenmaier has not actually got that team of attorneys to attend to this class action.  In fact I'd be inclined to suspect that it was all just a rather empty threat.  Otherwise he needs to find himself a new set of attorneys.  Because a year is far in excess of what's required.  His complaint - though rather confusing - is clear.  He has stolen our paper through the simple expediency of stating under oath that the Scribd publication is his exclusive property and work.  And for this he needs must bring a class action to bear against me to assert his sole rights to access and publish that paper.  I'd say it would take all of about an hour and an attorney's clerk to manage the paper work.  Frankly Glen, I get the distinct impression that your own team of attorneys are simply not taking you seriously enough.  If I were in your shoes I'd sack them.  Find a new team.  But DON'T expect me to nominate them for you.  It's not acceptable protocol.  In fact I think it would be construed as 'prejudicial'?  Something like that.  LOL.  Certainly not usual practice for the Defendant to nominate the Plaintif's attorney.  Never heard the like.  ::) :o

Rosie Pose.

Rosemary ..... whats required for MY lawsuit should not concern you other than when your receive it.

It will be factual and correct unlike anything you have done in your entire lifetime.

Do your ............ Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

I don't care ..... why don't you answer TK on your fraudulent video ???

MAKE YOUR GRAND CHILDREN  "PROUD" !!!!


 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 03:16:09 PM
It is also to be noted that whenever Rosemary is refuted by references or even by conversations with the person involved himself, she simply ignores the refutation and continues on.

25.6 million Joules.
"PER" never means a division operation.
Powercat endorses her claims.
FTC confirmed her COP figures.
The green trace is not the common drains and has nothing to do with her circuit or claims.

And many many more of her claims like those above have been UNDENIABLY refuted, with references -- so she just moves on and refuses to discuss the refutations, while still making the same tired old mendacious claims.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 03:18:58 PM
Rosemary ..... whats required for MY lawsuit should not concern you other than when your receive it.

It will be factual and correct unlike anything you have done in your entire lifetime.

Do your ............ Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

I don't care ..... why don't you answer TK on your fraudulent video ???

MAKE YOUR GRAND CHILDREN  "PROUD" !!!!


 :P


At this point I'd be happy if she'd just explain what the GREEN TRACE is supposed to represent, if it isn't the common mosfet drains like I and the presenter and the diagrams all say it is, since Rosemary has denied that it is. WHAT IS IT then? If it's not pertinent to your demonstration or claims, Rosemary Ains-lie,  what is it doing prominently displayed and labelled in your comedy-of-errors video?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 23, 2012, 03:34:50 PM
Quote
It is also to be noted that whenever Rosemary is refuted by references or even by conversations with the person involved himself, she simply ignores the refutation and continues on.

And many many more of her claims like those above have been UNDENIABLY refuted, with references -- so she just moves on and refuses to discuss the refutations, while still making the same tired old mendacious claims.

Old 'Iron Curtain' Rosie, she is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

"I cannot forecast to you the action of Rosie Posie. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Rosie's personal interest."

But the LEDs of Doom say 1989 is coming soon!!!

Rosie Posie, tear down this wall of ignorance and stupidity!!!

lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
This is so sad for ROSEMARY'S grand children.

Like a flat chested girl getting teased by school mates on her physical appearance.

The grand children when any school mate "GOOGLES" the name AINSLIE ..... there it will be ..... FRAUD and other damning information.

This will be devastating to the grand children .... the teasing will be endless.  :'(


DOES ROSEMARY CARE ...... HELL NO !!!       FAMILY OR NO FAMILY !!!   :o


MY "THESIS" TILL THE END !!!   ???


SO SAD  :'(
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 03:53:05 PM
Here's another link to some info about the FG that seems to be the one Rosemary is using.
http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8216A.html (http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8216A.html)

Note the use of the symbol "W" where one would normally expect to see the OHM omega symbol:

Quote
Impedance: 50W ±10%
and
Quote
DC Offset:<-5V ~ >+5V (into 50W load)

and a couple more times in the specs for the counter functions.

Since when is impedance measured in Watts? Since never. This should be "ohms", and in the other instances as well.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 04:01:09 PM
Are the innocent bystander newcomers starting to get a feel for just why the old-timers get so ruffled and fed up to the gills with Rosemary? We can't stop, either, because then she'll think -- and say and claim --  that's an ENDORSEMENT of her claims or that our various refutations have failed.
Meanwhile, what has really failed is for ANYONE ANYWHERE to reproduce or support her claim of overunity performance.

(Here's where FTC and I differ as friends and scientists: I don't think his work showed OU either, but I have not examined it in the detail that I have with Rosemary's claims, and HE is not making claims HERE, and has clearly stated that he doesn't support Rosemary's claims here... so I'm not worried about his work. Also, I know that he's intellectually honest enough to evaluate his own work critically, and has done so in the past with good results.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 04:11:24 PM
so Guys,

This is how these threads of mine trend.  For some reason Tinsel Koala, Powercat, MileHigh, Glen Lettenmaier - and sundry - are free to entirely misrepresent our circuit - our claim - our waveforms - anything they choose, without any kind of accountability at all.  If TK were obliged to show his identity then he would be considerably more cautious as he would then know he could be held accountable.  Glen I'm not concerned with.  He is - self-evidently - utterly unprincipled and - by rights - should not be allowed on any self respecting forum.  His flagrant breach of confidential information and the level of his sad attempts at traducement are that excessive that they're positively vulgar.  But please note.  Harti is positively encouraging this.  And that is something that I cannot wrap my mind around.  One would have thought he'd allow any claim a fair chance.  As it is I would be grossly embarrassed to refer any academic to this thread - where I'm soliciting their involvement.  I suspect that Harti's fully aware of this.  And I'm inclined to suspect that's precisely why he allows this.

I'm afraid that Harti will be obliged to lock this thread and I suspect that is precisely why he's encouraged this troll attack.  You must all of you draw what conclusions you may.  Bear in mind that he took Glen Lettenmaier off moderation precisely to encourage this.  And strangely - he also then invited MileHigh to join in.  Both have long been antagonists of this technology.  This is all way past acceptable.  I can only conclude that they'll persist in this abuse in order to get this thread locked.  And all this in order to prevent our definitive draw down test.  Then in due course I'll be invited back.  And the same will occur.  What they cannot tolerate is to give a fair chance for some really interesting technology to ever see the light of day. 

SO.  For the record.  We are more than happy to engage in a definitive draw down test that will conclusively prove the anomalies related to our circuit.  And we strongly anticipate that the evidence will conform to the measurements over our circuit as detailed in both our papers.  And unless I am given some reasonable chance to do that demonstration - then our trolls have won.  And that with Harti's active assistance.  Go figger.

What these trolls are attempting - with some considerable efficiency - is to prevent that demonstration from being held on these forums.  It will be way too definitive for their comfort - where the obvious intention is to frustrate experimental proof and rely on allegation, allusion, insinuation, or just plain traducement to win their argument.  Which goes to show.  Over unity is not to be defeated by intelligent argument - or even by experimental proof - but simply by sheer force of opinion.  What is particularly galling is that everyone will then assume - as ever - that over unity has not been proved.  It most certainly has been.  It's just that Harti seems anxious to keep that knowledge away from this thread. Else why would he allow this flagrant abuse of forum guidelines.  I ask you?

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 04:35:40 PM

Oh come on, what would be the fun in that?  You know how these tests go with overunity devices.  They never go well, and then it's over.  The joy is in the ride, not the destination, so give the circuit a little more time to smell the roses.

I would be happy to prove you wrong here eatenbyagrue.  Surely this is a challenge?  We've already held public demonstrations of this circuit and there was absolutely NO FAIL.  And we're more than willing to do so again - but this time to test the battery draw downs.  Surely it would be more politic to judge this after completion of that demonstration?  Not before?  I thought you were rather fair minded on the whole.  Was i wrong?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 23, 2012, 04:48:15 PM
Rosemary:

Quote
And we strongly anticipate that the evidence will conform to the measurements over our circuit as detailed in both our papers.

This is not true.  But all you do is DENY DENY DENY.  You are pigheaded and you refuse to listen to anybody else.

Bring on your draw-down test, I welcome it.  It's just not going to be that easy to do.

So your thread is nothing more than farcical comedy at this point for many people.  Since arguing with you is futile, why not just poke fun at the ridiculous charade it has all become.

When the draw-down test is a shocker for you, then do the other tests and see that they all show Mother Nature doing exactly what she is supposed to be doing - the perfect harmony and balance manifested when energy transforms from one form into another.

Every time your MOSFET switch opens some current flows through the switch such that current flows clockwise through your circuit and there is a voltage drop, electrical energy is converted into heat energy, and the batteries discharge.   That is the inescapable reality that you DENY DENY DENY because your DSO data capture sucked.

Your team of buffoons that you worked with had no idea that the current was flowing through the function generator itself.  Yes, I know, you DENY DENY DENY this fact even though you saw it running in a simulation.  You are a complete ignoramus when it comes to electronics yet you are sure that you know better than myself, Poynt, and other when it comes to the question of current flowing through the function generator.

So, indeed, this thread is nothing but farcical comedy at this point in time.  Hopefully you will do the battery draw-down test properly and then you will have to face the fact that you have been chasing a pipe dream for the past year over a miswired MOSFET circuit that is simply useless.

It's all nothing more than a sad joke at this point in time.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 23, 2012, 05:05:06 PM
so Guys,

But please note.  Harti is positively encouraging this.  And that is something that I cannot wrap my mind around.  One would have thought he'd allow any claim a fair chance.
What these trolls are attempting - with some considerable efficiency - is to prevent that demonstration from being held on these forums.

Regards,
Rosemary

How many years would you call a fair chance ? Stefan has given you three threads and still nobody can produce excess  energy from any of your circuits
 
Interesting how you're attacking the majority of people who post here and calling them trolls, when you are the one wasting everybody's time with your BS claims.
 
In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
so Guys,

This is how these threads of mine trend.  For some reason Tinsel Koala, Powercat, MileHigh, Glen Lettenmaier - and sundry - are free to entirely misrepresent our circuit - our claim - our waveforms - anything they choose, without any kind of accountability at all.  If TK were obliged to show his identity then he would be considerably more cautious as he would then know he could be held accountable.  Glen I'm not concerned with.  He is - self-evidently - utterly unprincipled and - by rights - should not be allowed on any self respecting forum.  His flagrant breach of confidential information and the level of his sad attempts at traducement are that excessive that they're positively vulgar.  But please note.  Harti is positively encouraging this.  And that is something that I cannot wrap my mind around.  One would have thought he'd allow any claim a fair chance.  As it is I would be grossly embarrassed to refer any academic to this thread - where I'm soliciting their involvement.  I suspect that Harti's fully aware of this.  And I'm inclined to suspect that's precisely why he allows this.

I'm afraid that Harti will be obliged to lock this thread and I suspect that is precisely why he's encouraged this troll attack.  You must all of you draw what conclusions you may.  Bear in mind that he took Glen Lettenmaier off moderation precisely to encourage this.  And strangely - he also then invited MileHigh to join in.  Both have long been antagonists of this technology.  This is all way past acceptable.  I can only conclude that they'll persist in this abuse in order to get this thread locked.  And all this in order to prevent our definitive draw down test.  Then in due course I'll be invited back.  And the same will occur.  What they cannot tolerate is to give a fair chance for some really interesting technology to ever see the light of day. 

SO.  For the record.  We are more than happy to engage in a definitive draw down test that will conclusively prove the anomalies related to our circuit.  And we strongly anticipate that the evidence will conform to the measurements over our circuit as detailed in both our papers.  And unless I am given some reasonable chance to do that demonstration - then our trolls have won.  And that with Harti's active assistance.  Go figger.

What these trolls are attempting - with some considerable efficiency - is to prevent that demonstration from being held on these forums.  It will be way too definitive for their comfort - where the obvious intention is to frustrate experimental proof and rely on allegation, allusion, insinuation, or just plain traducement to win their argument.  Which goes to show.  Over unity is not to be defeated by intelligent argument - or even by experimental proof - but simply by sheer force of opinion.  What is particularly galling is that everyone will then assume - as ever - that over unity has not been proved.  It most certainly has been.  It's just that Harti seems anxious to keep that knowledge away from this thread. Else why would he allow this flagrant abuse of forum guidelines.  I ask you?

Regards,
Rosemary

Hi guests and members,

As you can see the delusional mind of Rosemary's so deranged, and disturbed not one person comes to her defense ..... NO ONE !!

There is not one academic, engineer or someone involved in any of her projects that's been around not one comes to her defense.

The only ones from here are those whom have never tried to make a "magical" Rosemary device ..... possibly even Rosemary posing as someone else here at OU as she did in a previous thread as "Doozie" from what I remember.

These threads go on and on with her BS for at least 120 pages or more and if everyone is tired of this like most of us here please e-mail Stefan the owner and moderator at   hartiberlin@googlemail.com



FuzzyTomCat
 ;)


added - Other members may want to add Stefan's e-mail address in the body of their posts ...... "stop the madness"
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 23, 2012, 06:49:20 PM
I would be happy to prove you wrong here eatenbyagrue.  Surely this is a challenge?  We've already held public demonstrations of this circuit and there was absolutely NO FAIL.  And we're more than willing to do so again - but this time to test the battery draw downs.  Surely it would be more politic to judge this after completion of that demonstration?  Not before?  I thought you were rather fair minded on the whole.  Was i wrong?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I am not as smart in electronics as you and some of the others, but I remain cautiously optimistic about the circuit and think you deserve the full opportunity to prove it.  I think you are very close, but my layman math arrived at a slightly different formula.  But I am just a layman here, so I could be wrong.  I was just going by what I have studied on the internet.
So I hope to be pro en wrong and look forward to seeing your self running circuit.  Once you get it to self-power, all these people will shut up, I promise you.
 
I very much look forward to your finished product.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 23, 2012, 06:55:45 PM
Hey, Counselor.... ask her what the GREEN TRACE represents in the scope shot I've reproduced from her video.

I very much look forward to her explanation of that trace. If it's not the mosfet common drain, like the presenter and the diagram... and yours truly.... say it is.... then what is it? She says it's NOT the common drain and isn't relevant to her story. Yet she was standing right behind the presenter in the video when he says it IS.

And.. .is there anyone BESIDES ROSEMARY who finds my post detailing the details of the scope shot wrong or objectionable in any way? Anyone care to interpret it, differently or otherwise?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 09:29:12 PM
Rosemary ..... whats required for MY lawsuit should not concern you other than when your receive it.

It will be factual and correct unlike anything you have done in your entire lifetime.

Do your ............ Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

I don't care ..... why don't you answer TK on your fraudulent video ???

MAKE YOUR GRAND CHILDREN  "PROUD" !!!!


 :P


Guys,
Just going over some of these posts.  This one is classic.  I've been rolling.  I'm afraid that poor Glen Lettenmaier just ran out of words.   ::) Not actually his thing.  One must make allowances.  :o   He's been challenged to stop that 'cut and paste' and show us the rare sight on an original post.  WELL.  He's managed it. And notwithstanding the difficulties he experiences with the written and spoken word.  You see here the indomitable spirit of the dedicated troll.  And there's no arguing it.  He actually DID manage an original post.  He just changed the text to put it in range of his competence. 

Anyway.  Always nice to find some reason to laugh.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 09:36:52 PM
Hi guests and members,

As you can see the delusional mind of Rosemary's so deranged, and disturbed not one person comes to her defense ..... NO ONE !!

There is not one academic, engineer or someone involved in any of her projects that's been around not one comes to her defense.

The only ones from here are those whom have never tried to make a "magical" Rosemary device ..... possibly even Rosemary posing as someone else here at OU as she did in a previous thread as "Doozie" from what I remember.

These threads go on and on with her BS for at least 120 pages or more and if everyone is tired of this like most of us here please e-mail Stefan the owner and moderator at   hartiberlin@googlemail.com



FuzzyTomCat
 ;)


added - Other members may want to add Stefan's e-mail address in the body of their posts ...... "stop the madness"
 

And as for this.  I think Glen seriously believes he can encourage anyone to rally other than his faithful band of trolls.  But it intrigues me that he's so anxious to shut down this thread.  I think it's because he doesn't want continual reminders of that class action law suit he's alleging that his going to serve on me.  LOL. 

You need to get your legal team to rally Glen.  Not our poor members. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 09:49:17 PM
Hi guests and members,

As you can see the delusional mind of Rosemary's so deranged, and disturbed not one person comes to her defense ..... NO ONE !!

There is not one academic, engineer or someone involved in any of her projects that's been around not one comes to her defense.

The only ones from here are those whom have never tried to make a "magical" Rosemary device ..... possibly even Rosemary posing as someone else here at OU as she did in a previous thread as "Doozie" from what I remember.

These threads go on and on with her BS for at least 120 pages or more and if everyone is tired of this like most of us here please e-mail Stefan the owner and moderator at   hartiberlin@googlemail.com
FuzzyTomCat
 ;)
added - Other members may want to add Stefan's e-mail address in the body of their posts ...... "stop the madness"
 


My Dear Glen Lettenmaier,
If you have found it difficult trying to read 120 pages or more - then stop trying.  I'm not sure that you're under any obligation.  You notice that the only people who tolerate you are TK and MileHigh.  And of course, Powercat.  And we all know to judge a man by his friends.

Unlike you I don't need help in defending myself.  And when and if I get to need this - even then I wouldn't impose.  I'd rather my team stay away.  On the whole they prefer to deal with professionals and gentlemen.  I'm not sure how they'd manage the rampant excesses of sociopathic abuses.  I'm well able to fight my corner.  And I know better than to take any of you seriously.

Again,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 09:51:26 PM
How many years would you call a fair chance ? Stefan has given you three threads and still nobody can produce excess  energy from any of your circuits
 
Interesting how you're attacking the majority of people who post here and calling them trolls, when you are the one wasting everybody's time with your BS claims.
 
In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.

My dear Powercat.  This is simply not true.  But if it helps you to think this then feel free.  I'm not sure that I care either way.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 23, 2012, 09:58:05 PM
My dear Powercat.  This is simply not true.  But if it helps you to think this then feel free.  I'm not sure that I care either way.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary Ainslie you are a Delusional Fantasist
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 10:27:29 PM
Hello MileHigh,

I usually enjoy your posts.  But you're losing your touch a bit.  I detect the kind of repetition that I usually associate with senility. 
Rosemary:
This is not true.  But all you do is DENY DENY DENY.  You are pigheaded and you refuse to listen to anybody else.
Not at all.  I'm very attentive when I respect a person's opinion.  But then I needs must also respect that person's intelligence.  I find a dearth of it amongst you trolls.  Sadly.
Bring on your draw-down test, I welcome it. It's just not going to be that easy to do.
Thanks.  But I'm not sure that I need your permission.
So your thread is nothing more than farcical comedy at this point for many people.  Since arguing with you is futile, why not just poke fun at the ridiculous charade it has all become.
Indeed MileHigh.  How can it be anything BUT farcical.  It's dominated by troll contributions.
When the draw-down test is a shocker for you, then do the other tests and see that they all show Mother Nature doing exactly what she is supposed to be doing - the perfect harmony and balance manifested when energy transforms from one form into another.
Here's a case in point MilesUpThere.  You're losing your touch.  When the draw-down test is a shocker?  What?  You already know the outcome?  Or are you ASSUMING the outcome?  And then those inanities about Nature doing her thing?  Not your usual standard.
Every time your MOSFET switch opens some current flows through the switch such that current flows clockwise through your circuit and there is a voltage drop, electrical energy is converted into heat energy, and the batteries discharge.   That is the inescapable reality that you DENY DENY DENY because your DSO data capture sucked.
I can't tell you how disappointed I am.  I really expected better.  Actually I challenged you to come up with a full on analysis of the positive half of each waveform related to the required path.  And this is the best you can do?  Platitudes and generalisations.  I'm concerned about that mind of yours MileHigh.  Are you getting old?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 10:27:56 PM
Your team of buffoons
Buffoons?  That's rich.  The only buffoons that I know are right here dominating this thread.
... that you worked with had no idea that the current was flowing through the function generator itself.  Yes, I know, you DENY DENY DENY this fact even though you saw it running in a simulation.  You are a complete ignoramus when it comes to electronics yet you are sure that you know better than myself, Poynt, and other when it comes to the question of current flowing through the function generator.
MilesSoVeryVeryHigh.  This is absolutely NOT your usual standard.  The more I read the more disappointed I am.  You need to do better.  One of you lot surely can get an argument together to explain that waveform.  Denial is NOT an argument.  Never has been.  And for that precise reason I don't use it.  But you seem to be relying on it rather heavily.  The challenge is to FIND the current path.  And the current path is NOT through the function generator.  That argument is now TIRED.  As I suspect you are.  This post is just not typical of you.  I actually hope you're Ok.  And I mean it.  Perhaps you'll bounce back tomorrow and give me something I can get my teeth into.  I'd hate to find that my favorite troll has really lost his teeth. 
 
 Kindest regards
 Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 11:02:52 PM
Gee Wiz !!!

I come back and Rosemary's went bonkers !!

She must have packed her nose with "catnip" that's the only explanation .... the next thing she'll be rolling around slobbering all over or climbing up the walls and seeing things.  :o


 ???


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 11:12:49 PM

I am not as smart in electronics as you and some of the others, but I remain cautiously optimistic about the circuit and think you deserve the full opportunity to prove it.  I think you are very close, but my layman math arrived at a slightly different formula.  But I am just a layman here, so I could be wrong.  I was just going by what I have studied on the internet.
So I hope to be pro en wrong and look forward to seeing your self running circuit.  Once you get it to self-power, all these people will shut up, I promise you.
 
I very much look forward to your finished product.

 Well that's fair.  Thanks.  But there are subtleties at play here eatenbyagrue.  You are expecting something to self-power?  Not sure what you mean.  We certainly need the battery voltage potential but from what we see - we actually never access it's current.  I have no idea how this is likely to impact on an battery draw down test - only because we've never seen any battery drawn down.  One of my colleagues has certainly done a replication where there was a reduction in battery voltage.  But he did his setting 'blind' and when we tested this on the LeCroy - it was NOT actually set at that negative wattage number.  So.  There's magic in that resonance - but it needs to be combined with some optimisation of the actual applied duty cycle and switching frequency.
 
 I would be very reluctant to assert this claim without the evidence of the battery outperforming it's watt hour rating.  You must remember that we've had these batteries now for more than 2 years - and have used them continuously for 18 months on various tests on virtually, a daily basis.  And in all that time we have not even had a single drop in voltage over these 6 batteries.  Two of them were taken out of the equation because they caught fire and needed recharging.  But we've not touched this remaining six with a recharger.  Ever.  And their voltage is EXACTLY where it was when we took delivery.  In any event.  As Poynty has pointed out.  This needs to be tested.  The sooner the better.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary

May I add it would be much sooner if I was not required to defend my back from this 'troll attack from hell'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 23, 2012, 11:20:43 PM
Rosie Posie,

You have gone from LOL's to a passive disinterested deadpan delivery.  Same difference, you are nervous and uncomfortable.  It's all just a tit-for-tat game you are playing right now.

The only thing that matters is the truth.  You deny all attempts to arrive at the truth with the one exception of the battery draw-down test.  So it would seem that we have to rely on you and whomever it is that's going to assist you to do the draw-down test?

Certainly you are not capable of doing it yourself.  If you are going to rely on the same team, Team Ainslie-Buffoon, then I have very little hope that it will ever get done properly.  The current loop in your nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs does indeed flow straight through the function generator when the output waveform is negatively offset, I assure you.

Remember, you had a freak-out when Poynt asked you to analyze a circuit consisting of a battery connected to a single resistor.  What chance do you have to do a draw-down test and analyze that?

Rosie Posie's Flying Circus.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 23, 2012, 11:21:01 PM
so Guys,

This is how these threads of mine trend.  For some reason Tinsel Koala, Powercat, MileHigh, Glen Lettenmaier - and sundry - are free to entirely misrepresent our circuit - our claim - our waveforms - anything they choose, without any kind of accountability at all.  If TK were obliged to show his identity then he would be considerably more cautious as he would then know he could be held accountable.  Glen I'm not concerned with.  He is - self-evidently - utterly unprincipled and - by rights - should not be allowed on any self respecting forum.  His flagrant breach of confidential information and the level of his sad attempts at traducement are that excessive that they're positively vulgar.  But please note.  Harti is positively encouraging this.  And that is something that I cannot wrap my mind around.  One would have thought he'd allow any claim a fair chance.  As it is I would be grossly embarrassed to refer any academic to this thread - where I'm soliciting their involvement.  I suspect that Harti's fully aware of this.  And I'm inclined to suspect that's precisely why he allows this.

I'm afraid that Harti will be obliged to lock this thread and I suspect that is precisely why he's encouraged this troll attack.  You must all of you draw what conclusions you may.  Bear in mind that he took Glen Lettenmaier off moderation precisely to encourage this.  And strangely - he also then invited MileHigh to join in.  Both have long been antagonists of this technology.  This is all way past acceptable.  I can only conclude that they'll persist in this abuse in order to get this thread locked.  And all this in order to prevent our definitive draw down test.  Then in due course I'll be invited back.  And the same will occur.  What they cannot tolerate is to give a fair chance for some really interesting technology to ever see the light of day. 

SO.  For the record.  We are more than happy to engage in a definitive draw down test that will conclusively prove the anomalies related to our circuit.  And we strongly anticipate that the evidence will conform to the measurements over our circuit as detailed in both our papers.  And unless I am given some reasonable chance to do that demonstration - then our trolls have won.  And that with Harti's active assistance.  Go figger.

What these trolls are attempting - with some considerable efficiency - is to prevent that demonstration from being held on these forums.  It will be way too definitive for their comfort - where the obvious intention is to frustrate experimental proof and rely on allegation, allusion, insinuation, or just plain traducement to win their argument.  Which goes to show.  Over unity is not to be defeated by intelligent argument - or even by experimental proof - but simply by sheer force of opinion.  What is particularly galling is that everyone will then assume - as ever - that over unity has not been proved.  It most certainly has been.  It's just that Harti seems anxious to keep that knowledge away from this thread. Else why would he allow this flagrant abuse of forum guidelines.  I ask you?

Regards,
Rosemary

Hi guests and members,

As you can see the delusional mind of Rosemary's so deranged, and disturbed not one person comes to her defense ..... NO ONE !!

There is not one academic, engineer or someone involved in any of her projects that's been around not one comes to her defense.

The only ones from here are those whom have never tried to make a "magical" Rosemary device ..... possibly even Rosemary posing as someone else here at OU as she did in a previous thread as "Doozie" from what I remember.

These threads go on and on with her BS for at least 120 pages or more and if everyone is tired of this like most of us here please e-mail Stefan the owner and moderator at 
hartiberlin@googlemail.com



FuzzyTomCat
;)


Other members may want to add Stefan's e-mail address in the body of their posts ...... "stop the madness"

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 11:24:57 PM
That's more like it MileHigh.  Better prose, more adventurous insights, more subtle innuendos.  Now.  Do that analysis.  Let's see your explanation.  Even if you're claiming the current comes from the function generator.  Remember to apply the known resistances.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Rosie Posie,

You have gone from LOL's to a passive disinterested deadpan delivery.  Same difference, you are nervous and uncomfortable.  It's all just a tit-for-tat game you are playing right now.

The only thing that matters is the truth.  You deny all attempts to arrive at the truth with the one exception of the battery draw-down test.  So it would seem that we have to rely on you and whomever it is that's going to assist you to do the draw-down test?

Certainly you are not capable of doing it yourself.  If you are going to rely on the same team, Team Ainslie-Buffoon, then I have very little hope that it will ever get done properly.  The current loop in your nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs does indeed flow straight through the function generator when the output waveform is negatively offset, I assure you.

Remember, you had a freak-out when Poynt asked you to analyze a circuit consisting of a battery connected to a single resistor.  What chance do you have to do a draw-down test and analyze that?

Rosie Posie's Flying Circus.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 23, 2012, 11:45:52 PM
Well, when the electrons hit the fan everybody psych yourself up for about a week's worth of profuse apologies and digital sniffles and tears from Rosie Posie.  There was an incident like that about two years ago, I think it had to do with whether or not there was a diode in the original circuit.

Rosie will swoon when the truth comes out and the tears will flow and flow in a giant burst of under unity in all it's glory.  You will all be smothered in apologies and apologies and apologies and then we can all collectively mourn the end of the era of delicious oscillations.

Next stop Sterling Allen!  lol
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 23, 2012, 11:54:22 PM
Here is the output path for the Instek GFG-8216A, courtesy Kenenth Ho at Instek America. I received this Jan 30th.

The switches are for 20dB attenuation, but are shown in the normal unattenuated position. I don't believe Rosemary was using the attenuation setting (which would be a pulled AMPLITUDE knob).

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 12:27:44 AM
Thanks for posting that from the INSTEK circuit, .99. Of course, nobody that can read that diagram pretends that Rosemary is correct in her claims.... and Rosemary can't read that diagram or interpret it at all.

What's the green trace Rosemary?

For someone who accuses me of trying to silence you.... you are remaining awfully silent on this issue.... except of course to say that I'm wrong. But you WON'T EXPLAIN why the diagram and the presenter and the actual physical circuit show that the GREEN TRACE is the mosfet common drains... unless of course, as at 0:42 of the video... something ELSE is also connected there which is NOT SHOWN on the circuit diagram.

You have ample opportunity to ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS about these contradictions and impossibilties but you REFUSE to do so time and time again.

YOU ARE THE ONE IMPOSING A CONE OF SILENCE ABOUT THE ACTUAL PARAMETERS AND BEHAVIOUR OF YOUR INDUCTIVE CLAMP TEST CIRCUIT. Open Source Project? Again.... a redefinition of words by Rosemary Ains-lie.

The GREEN TRACE. What does the GREEN TRACE represent?





Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 12:52:12 AM
Now... eatenbyagrue, you think you aren't sophisticated enough in electronics to be able to evaluate her circuit.
But actually... you are.

Have you ever experienced a loose or corroded positive battery cable in your automobile? Most any driver has, and knows that any loose connection here will interfere with the charging system and also will not be able to carry the current necessary for the starter. Now... the Source and Drain connections of a power MOSFET are kind of like the battery cables in your car. They must be securely attached to whatever they are attached to, and the connections must be of low resistance themselves. The internal "ON" state resistance of the IRFPG50 mosfet is 2.0 Ohms. Have you ever touched and felt the temperature of a loose battery  cable after you've tried to start your car and run the battery down doing so? Feel that heat? That is (P=I squared R) heat, aka Joule Heating. The resistance of the loose connection is high and with high current flow, much power is dissipated at the loose connection in the form of heat... and this power isn't getting to your starter.

Now... take a look at the construction of Rosemary's demonstration circuit. See all those ALLIGATOR CLIP LEADS, clipped to long pieces of ALLTHREAD ROD or long screws to make the parallel connections and further on through the circuit. ALLIGATOR CLIPLEADS on long bits of wire, connected by spring tension only to something that isn't even designed to be an electrical conductor.

Now... take her claim of supplying 26.5 million Joules to something in 100 minutes (6000 seconds.) Since we know (some of us) that a WATT is a JOULE PER SECOND, we can take the 25.6 MILLION JOULE figure and DIVIDE BY the number of seconds to arrive at a WATTAGE figure that must have been applied CONTINUALLY for the entire 6000 seconds in order to transfer that much energy. That wattage figure is over 4200 Watts, continually. Since this power was supplied at 60 or 62 Volts we can determine the AMPERAGE necessary, since P=V x A, so we have A (or I for current) = P/V or.... wait for it..... over 70 AMPS, continuously, for the entire 600 seconds without interruption. If her system is only supplying power during the ON part of a 50 percent duty cycle... then it must supply 140 AMPS during those periods, since that means that the power is actually only on for half the 100 minute timespan.

Now... can those cliplead connections carry SEVENTY AMPERES of current? If the MOSFET's internal ON state resistance is 2.0 Ohms, how much power MUST be dissipated within the mosfet with 70 amps (or even 1/4 of 70 amps in the stack of 4) flowing through it? This is given by the relation P= I squared x R, or, P = (70)(70)(2), or a whopping 9800 Watts heating up that single mosfet, or a quarter of that for each in the stack of 4. That is the power that must be dissipated IN THE MOSFET ALONE at a current of 70 amps through a 2 ohm mosfet. Of course the transistor itself can only carry about 4 amps maximum before it blows up. So to claim the performance that she has claimed and defended over and over requires that you swallow such a linked chain of absurdities that it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE, even if her circuit actually COULD work as claimed. There is no way that the apparatus itself could sustain the power levels required.

The true current levels in Rosemary's apparatus will be limited by the ability of the mosfets to handle the current. The single MOSFET can handle a bit more than 4 amps when COLD and less when at operating temperatures. Multiply by 4 for the behaviour of the stack, so at BEST, her circuit might be able to handle 16 amps for a short time. And her claim equates to a claim of 70 amps for 100 minutes continuously, or 140 amps at a 50 percent duty cycle.

And she says "Do The Math", in her overweening arrogance and willful ignorance.

Note that she can't claim that the power is made "in the load" somehow and dissipated there without affecting the mosfets ... .since she's used the ELECTRICAL PARAMETERS of the rest of her circuit to derive her bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure and her other "evidence" of OU performance.

ETA: attached the IRFPG50 mosfet data sheet.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 01:14:46 AM
I said earlier,
Quote
The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.


And Rosemary Ains-lie replied,
Quote
Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

And further,
Guys, I think this is the reference TK's asking me about.  If so, then I've said all I intend to say about this.  I certainly won't indulge him a free lesson in the art of waveform analysis - albeit much required.  In fact I'm not sure that there's any point in answering any of his posts ever.  I think he's guilty of egregious violations - all over the place.  Puts me in mind of Hitler.  Or Savonarola.  They were both rather self-righteous - and it's tediously inappropriate to a science forum.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

There... you see... she lies about the trace and then compares me to Hitler and Savonarola for asking her to explain her assertions.

Everything I've said is backed up with external references. Where are the references to support what she says? Take a look... they ALL come from her.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 01:33:28 AM
I saw this heating element in the surplus store today so I picked it up to try. Note that it is a Camco 02142, rated 1500 Watts at 120 V. This is a water-heater element, one of a pair that's normally installed in a 40-gallon home water heater. It has a resistance measured on my Simpson of just over 10 Ohms. At 120 V and 10 Ohms, Ohm's law says V=IR, so I=V/R or 120/10.1 = 11.88, call it 12 amps. So the power dissipated in the element at a supply of 120 Volts must be P = I^2R, or (12)(12)(10.1) or... 1454 Watts, close enough... that is, within the accuracy limit of my resistance measurement.

I haven't measured its inductance or tried it with the Ains-lie circuit.... yet.... but I'm sure it will be interesting when I do.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 02:13:35 AM
Note these photos from Ains-lie's demo video. To get from the backside to the front, just rotate the backside right to left, like turning the page of a book.

There are 8 scope probes connected to the various parts of the circuit, with all their GROUNDS connected to the single point (or rather chain of points) labelled "B", as in the diagram and the narration show. Also connected here is the "negative" or shield lead of the INSTEK function generator's output with a black alligator clip, and a RED alligator clip... the only one shown.... is the "positive" output or center lead of the FG's output cable. And it is connected where? Well... on the diagram SHOWN IN THE VIDEO it's supposed to be connected to point "C". But it is actually connected to the point labelled "F" on the board, along with two scope probes and the red-sheathed lead from the lone mosfet....
From looking at the blurry shot of the back side of the board, one can determine that the 4 mosfets on the big heatsinks are connected "backwards" with gate and source pins connected to the source and gate pins of the lone mosfet. This is a separate issue from the mislabelling of points "F" and "C" on the board, which is relatively harmless although confusing. So the board shows the point labelled "F" is actually connected to the gate of the lone mosfet and the source pins of the other 4. Note the red wires from these mosfets which go to the bottom right length of threaded rod. Now flip the board over, and see that this connection is labelled "source" and is indeed connected to the source pin of the lone mosfet. But it's the gates of the group of 4.
I realize this has been gone over before and it's a bit complex. But it's clear that the circuit presented on the video is NOT the circuit depicted in the paper diagram shown beneath it in the video. The revised, 2-mosfet diagram which was presented to us AFTER the errors had been pointed out...... is the correct configuration EXCEPT that it does not correct the "F" and "C" points confusion. The "corrected" diagram also seems to be in error though... isn't the FG's "minus" lead connected at the same point as all the other ground leads in the actual circuit in the video? Yet the "corrected" diagram shows it connected on the other side of the shunt resistors.

And clearly.... the common drains (the middle pins) of all the mosfets are indeed being monitored by two scope probes, one from the Tek and one from the LeCroy.  Which channel on the TEK is being used to display the common drain signal? Let's see.... the purple trace is the battery voltage, the yellow trace is the voltage drop across the CVR (shunt), the blue trace is the signal from the FG (***taken from the point on the actual board marked "F", not C***) and the other trace.... of some other strange color that we won't mention.... is taken from the common drain connection, which is connected to the board at the point labelled "C" (***NOT "F"***), and this is where its probes are connected.

Usually, scope manufacturers give you little colored markers that you can place onto the probes themselves so you can keep this stuff straight. There are a few of them on Ains-lie's probes but the color is washed out and I can't tell what they are. But the behaviour of the traces themselves tells the story, to anyone who knows how to read an oscilloscope.
ETA: I believe the LeCroy probes are the more delicate, slender ones with the colored collar markers. But of course.... who knows if the markers are on the correct color channel probes in the first place. Knowing this bunch of clowns who can't even get their demonstrations straight... somehow I doubt it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 02:38:50 AM

 (snip)
 I would be very reluctant to assert this claim without the evidence of the battery outperforming it's watt hour rating.  You must remember that we've had these batteries now for more than 2 years - and have used them continuously for 18 months on various tests on virtually, a daily basis.  And in all that time we have not even had a single drop in voltage over these 6 batteries.  Two of them were taken out of the equation because they caught fire and needed recharging.  But we've not touched this remaining six with a recharger.  Ever.  And their voltage is EXACTLY where it was when we took delivery.  In any event.  As Poynty has pointed out.  This needs to be tested.  The sooner the better.
 (snip)
How about you get that little video camera of yours out, and instead of pointing it at YOURSELF, point it at two or three of these "virtually daily" tests you are talking about, and SHOW IT BEING DONE.

And just how does a sealed silver calcium lead acid battery "catch fire"? There is one certain way to do it: short it out with a low-resistance current path, like dropping a tool onto the terminals and having it weld itself there.

Or are you claiming that your circuit magically overcharged them to the point of exploding?  I'm so tired of laughing at you my face hurts.

And now batteries are rated in "Watt hours". I suppose that's a SA thing... around here (and in the rest of the world) batteries have an Amp-Hour rating. To get to "watt hours" one must do some arithmetic... which is beyond your capacity, Rosemary Ains-lie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 07:22:54 AM
Hello eatenbyagrue - and everybody

You'll all be pleased to read this.

I think my problem here is that I only ever asked anyone to comment on a principle.  Here's how I explained it.  "If joules is determined as watts per second then the total in joules is also then factored over the entire test period? And then either in writing or conversation - I also ONLY got absolute confirmation.  That this is indeed correct.  On request I subsequently forwarded the actual sum as it applied to that battery analysis. 

I have FINALLY had a written reply to my actual sum - and I've also FINALLY understood that math error.  Abject apologies everyone.  I see now what I did wrong was to multiply my product by 60 minutes - once too often. It just goes to show what I prize idiot I am.  Actually I know this has irritated the hell out of some of you.  But I was so certain I was right.  And indeed I WAS right in principle.  Just not so much in fact.  In fact - I was out by a whopping factor of 60.  Why didn't any of you explain this?  Surely it was OBVIOUS where I was going wrong?

Anyway eatenbyagrue.  You're math is considerably better than my own.  Everyone's is.  And guys, readers everyone - abject apologies for being quite that pig headed.  I really thought that TK was - rather typically - misleading you all.  But when it comes to this extraordinary example of my mathematical ineptitude - then actually he was spot on.  But I'm also reasonably sure that he's delighted with this error of mine.  He's taken such good advantage of it.

It may seem somewhat irreverent but I've been greatly amused.  A nice way to start the day.  But I know that there are possibly those who view this as all as a serious attempt to mislead you.  It's not.  Trust me on this. Just an example of my really, really bad aptitude for math.  You'll be pleased to know that our paper was NEVER reliant on my own math input.  I leave that to my collaborators.  And that battery claim was entirely my own nonsense.  I'm rather ashamed that I was so insistent on being correct.  I was far from it.

Anyway.  I was indeed WRONG.  PROFOUNDLY SO.  I do apologise to all of you who, like me, were then subjected to the occasional reminder of this by TK. It made his complaints somewhat TEDIOUSLY repetitive.  And I'm sure that's not about to change.  LOL. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ACTUALLY - the person I REALLY need to apologise to is our Poynty.  You certainly alerted me to this.  And I think I may have ridden rough shod over your objections.  I'm sorry Poynty Point.  Indeed I am.  I did not do good there.  Not at all.   :o   But you're that much of a gentleman that you DID NOT exploit this.  WELL DONE INDEED.  I'm learning ever greater respect for you.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 07:39:54 AM
Well, when the electrons hit the fan everybody psych yourself up for about a week's worth of profuse apologies and digital sniffles and tears from Rosie Posie.  There was an incident like that about two years ago, I think it had to do with whether or not there was a diode in the original circuit.

Rosie will swoon when the truth comes out and the tears will flow and flow in a giant burst of under unity in all it's glory.  You will all be smothered in apologies and apologies and apologies and then we can all collectively mourn the end of the era of delicious oscillations.

Next stop Sterling Allen!  lol

Golly MileHigh.  In your dreams.  But nice to see you waxing poetic. 
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose..eo
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 08:14:01 AM
Now guys,

On a more serious note.  I need to disabuse you of the 'emphasis' that TK is trying to apply to our demonstration.  The entire purpose of that demonstration was to alert EXPERTS to the evidence of a negative wattage computed over a circuit - which negative wattage is anomalous.  Historically there has NEVER been that computation allowed through conventional measurement protocols.  Factors greater than a co-efficient of 1 have been argued.  Even demonstrated.  And in certain heat pumps - even accepted.  But not a negative wattage.  Because that cannot be explained without the evidence of an alternate energy supply source.

But our claim was NEVER related to battery efficiencies.  That's yet to be proved.  And, with luck, and if TK could resist this clamorous need for attention - then hopefully we can progress to that test.  I ask you to review his earlier attempt at a replication - that DOMINATED whole chapters of this thread.  There is absolutely NO similarity between what he shows and what we show.  I think he's given up trying to replicate this because he quite simply hasn't got the experimental aptitudes.  He could never even manage that oscillation which was our first early evidence of this.  And he most certainly hasn't got even close to showing either the oscillation or its significance on this new generation of that waveform.  Frankly, it's my opinion that he hasn't even got the intellectual wherewith all to understand it.  Else he's trying a rather poor exercise in diminishing this.  He needs to lay off and let me and Poynty argue this without distractions.  Clearly he has not got the competence.  I'd be more inclined to believe he's 'on topic' if I could see an appropriate experimental replication.  Short of this it's just way too much bombast and way too much posing in an effort to prevent that demonstration from taking place.  Or to diminish its significance when we do. 

I'm trying to alert you all to our explanation for this oscillation and at least have that much understood.  Because that is most certainly an intrinsic part of the claim and of the planned demonstration.  And he's trying very hard to keep me from doing this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
by the way (btw) it seems that he is now dominating more than 8 tenths of each page.  And this is meant to be my thread.  Clearly he's hungry for attention.  It is my opinion - in fact I'd put a small wager on it -  that, like Hitler, TK not only sports a moustache but he's rather short of stature.  Actually I think that's also like Mussolini.  Lots of precedents.  They tend to moralise, somewhat inappropriately.  And they REALLY need attention.  If TK had his own thread - then no-one would read it.  And he dare not take that risk.  Because historically that's what happened.  So.  He's joined this thread and trying very hard to take it over.  As ever, PLEASE apply your scroll function.  Liberally.  All that noise.  And NONE OF IT related to our claim. 
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 24, 2012, 08:37:58 AM
More like in _your_ dreams Rosemary.

We just saw some foreshadowing of the big upcoming tear burst.  You pigheadedly stuck to an incorrect assumption about something you didn't understand and you adamantly refused to listen to anyone.  Then someone 'enlightened' you and now it's abject apologies all around.

Posting #1475 shows the function generator output section.  It's another example illustrating how you are pigheadedly sticking to an incorrect assumption about something that you don't even understand.  Little Miss Mosfet knows nothing about electronics yet she makes definitive statements about electronics.

So, now that we have seen the foreshadowing, and we see another fail with respect to the function generator, it's just a matter or time.

It's all about the truth Rosemary, plain and simple.  Like I said, we are not willy-nilly mindless guppies swimming against the glass in a fishbowl.  Reason and logic and the truth is infinitely more important than your 'delicious oscillation' fantasies.  The application of knowledge to make our lives better is an important principle worth defending.  That's in contrast to your 'unaware snake oil' magic waveform elixir.  You don't even know that you are peddling snake oil, which makes it that much worse.

The cloudburst of digital tears is building up, we can already hear rumblings on the horizon.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 08:41:44 AM
More like in _your_ dreams Rosemary.

We just saw some foreshadowing of the big upcoming tear burst.  You pigheadedly stuck to an incorrect assumption about something you didn't understand and you adamantly refused to listen to anyone.  Then someone 'enlightened' you and now it's abject apologies all around.

Posting #1475 shows the function generator output section.  It's another example illustrating how you are pigheadedly are sticking to an incorrect assumption about something that you don't even understand.  Little Miss Mosfet knows nothing about electronics yet she makes definitive statements about electronics.

So, now that we have seen the foreshadowing, and we see another fail with respect to the function generator, it's just a matter or time.

It's all about the truth Rosemary, plain and simple.  Like I said, we are not willy-nilly mindless guppies swimming against the glass in a fishbowl.  Reason and logic and the truth is infinitely more important than your 'delicious oscillation' fantasies.  The application of knowledge to make our lives better is an important principle worth defending.  That's in contrast to your 'unaware snake oil' magic waveform elixir.  You don't even know that you are peddling snake oil, which makes it that much worse.

The cloudburst of digital tears is building up, we can already hear rumblings on the horizon.

MileHigh

Hello MileHigh.   ;D
Always nice to see you paying attention. 
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

BTW - when are you going to do that analysis?  Surely this is within your competence?  LOL.  or lololololo - take your pick.
Again,
Rosieposie pose 'eo'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 24, 2012, 10:11:08 AM
Rosemary,

Right.  That's the 'casual, disinterested and dismissive' persona to mask the fact that you are nervous and uncomfortable, again.  Quite a bag of 'tricks' you have there.  But the truth is that what I said in my previous posting was quite serious, and you can't ignore it or dismiss it.  The current travels straight through the function generator.

I don't have to analyze your waveforms.  The burden is on you, and you did zero analysis.  You just showed what you mistakenly thought was empirical evidence of over unity from the DSO captures.  If you were serious and had the competence available (which you clearly did not) then you would have analyzed your waveforms and pointed out exactly where in the periodic oscillatory waveform a 'magic unexplainable manifestation of energy from nowhere' was. (Or was the energy from the Fantasy Zipon Follies?)  You should have been able to pinpoint it precisely with the equipment that you had - where it was within each individual cycle - but instead you did nothing.

You are not competent to discuss the waveforms with Poynt.  But, alas, most of the time you are blissfully unaware, a.k.a. unconsciously incompetent.  Ignorance is Strength in your totalitarian fantasy world.

The big Poseo is looming on the horizon.  Sort of like Puff the Magic Dragon, your green scales and digital tears are going to fall like rain.

With all of the fake arrogance you are manifesting, it's going to be quite bemusing for some of us when the incessant and profuse apologies are offered up and your poor tortured soul bursts forth in the Mother of all Swoons and the cloudbursts of tears are finally released.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hoptoad on March 24, 2012, 10:28:59 AM
Hello again hoptoad.  Always a pleasure to see you there.  I've actually being going through your posts which are vastly entertaining and impeccably succinct.  I think you set us all a good example.  Perhaps, given a few more years - I may also learn that art. I'm a notoriously slow learner.  Glad to see that you're keeping your comments appropriate.  I think any discussion would be vastly more relevant than the way the discussions on this thread are going.  And I know those links.  I have to reference them every time I read an acronym.  I fixate on alternatives that takes me ever more removes from reality.  And according to our trolls my own grasp of reality has always been somewhat tenuous.

The reason I went through your posts was that I seemed to recall you undertaking to do our circuit.  Did you get around to this?  If you've got the time or the interest - please let me know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosemary (That's my sister's name by the way)

Alas, I cannot say I have faithfully reproduced your circuit. Although I did sling together a makeshift facsimile of the circuit based on components I already had available. However, after a very short time of experimenting, I had to acknowledge the pointlessness of any run down tests because my existing supply batteries are actually kapoot,or as the techies would say, FBB. Besides that, the circuit was not really a very faithful replication anyway.

My batteries have no real capacity left and are suitable only for short term low current experiments. Sooner or later I'll have to buy some new batteries. When I do, (finances permitting), I'll probably try your circuit again.

With your novel parallel mosfet configuration, I was unable to produce an oscillation with the mosfets I had available, so I played around with a few different mosfets and eventually got a single mosfet to oscillate, by allowing the gate to float with no connection to it. This method of self oscillation is easy to achieve with low power, high gain fets, with no base connection. Plenty of circuit examples are scattered
throughout the Doc Stiffler thread. However, as I see it, the difference between Mosfets and Fets is the body diode, which is often present in Mosfets. The body diode allows any counter emf (if there is any) to flow in the opposite direction to supply emf. Fets will normally block it.

A time comparative run down test is all I would be able to perform anyway, because I don't currently possess or have access to any decent accurate measuring equipment.

Given everything I've just said, its fair to say that I cannot contribute any meaningful dialogue regarding your circuit at the moment.

Cheers and KneeDeep.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 11:34:12 AM

You are not competent to discuss the waveforms with Poynt.  But, alas, most of the time you are blissfully unaware, a.k.a. unconsciously incompetent.  Ignorance is Strength in your totalitarian fantasy world.

The big Poseo is looming on the horizon.  Sort of like Puff the Magic Dragon, your green scales and digital tears are going to fall like rain.

With all of the fake arrogance you are manifesting, it's going to be quite bemusing for some of us when the incessant and profuse apologies are offered up and your poor tortured soul bursts forth in the Mother of all Swoons and the cloudbursts of tears are finally released.

MileHigh

Golly - such drama.  I'll try my best to oblige you MilesUpInTheClouds.   :o I wonder if you're not actually just a frustrated script writer.  You're not much of a scientist.  Not when you predict so much with so little knowledge of the fact.  As a rule a scientist allows the experimental evidence to guide his theory. But I see it now.  You're not able to do that analysis.  I think the 'fail' comes when you explain how a positive current breaches negative applied signal.  Or when the current discharge must somehow stay robust notwithstanding 1050 Ohms of resistance in its path through that function generator.  But hold your focus there MileHigh.  If I can squeeze in the explanations between TK's multiple page misdirections - then I'll explain all.  And then you can deny it all.  It makes for such interesting reading.

Kindest regards, MilesOfMisdirection
Rosie Posie

Nice to see you're getting a little bit more strength in your bite.  For a while there I saw some definite signs of galloping Alzheimer's.  Some rather overwhelming evidence of senile dementia.  You need to keep on your toes.  MileHigh.  Do what I do.  Take your vitamin supplements.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 11:46:00 AM
Hello Hoptoad,

Thanks for the update.  I'm actually acutely aware of your skills in this subject - and am sorry you're not able to assemble this apparatus.  We're all the losers - sadly. 

But thanks for trying.  And you're right about the value of those body diodes.  We've actually run a circuit on one of those really slow relay switches - and used a diode across the load to take the energy back to the supply.  Intriguing results - that were also certified by South African Bureau of Standards.  But then we were dealing with fractions of a watt - which always becomes a contestable result.  With good reason.

But interesting nonetheless.  I get it you're chemist?  Am I right?  Either way - I found your comments related to cold fusion very interesting indeed.  It's an opinion that I share - but has not been taken up by our members.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.
Sorry I wrote body diode.  Getting way too old here hoptoad. ::)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 12:49:40 PM
Rosemaru Ains-lie: Your idiot abject apology is not accepted. You continue to be a dolt. I explained in exquisite detail WHEN IT FIRST CAME UP just exactly why and how your calculation was wrong. MANY DAYS AGO. Somebody you trust has apparently finally explained your UNTENABLE POSITION re that calculation, fine. But you are not just a "factor of 60 out". You also ADD THE SAME QUANTITY OF ENERGY TWICE in that calculation.

Now..... let's get to some other points that I've made that you deny. What about "PER NEVER MEANS DIVISION"... your claim there has been devastated also, and your "teacher" no doubt has cleared up this little matter, or tried to..... Let's see your apology for that little farce.

But more importantly for this discussion: WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE shown on this scope shot? When are you going to apologize to me for contradicting me on THAT point.... when the presenter, the diagram, the photographs, and the scope trace behaviour ALL AGREE WITH ME.... that the green trace is the COMMON MOSFET DRAINS ??

Come on Ains-lie.... deal with the ISSUES I've raised and REFUTE ME WITH REFERENCES.

WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE?


And... by the way, insulting dolt idiot Ains-lie: I am 72 inches tall, and since there are 12 INCHES PER FOOT, that makes me a bit taller than you, I wager. How tall am I, in feet? How did you arrive at that number? Or, if you prefer metric measurements, you can simply multiply that 72 inch number by 25.4 to get my height in millimeters-- since there are 25.4 millimeters PER inch. Since there are 1000 millimeters PER meter, how tall am I then, in meters? How did you arrive at that number? If you can't do this problem... ask a bright ten-year-old to help you follow through the calculations.

 But just what do my height and moustache have to do with anything? Nothing at all... just like you being a feeble and ugly  old woman doesn't have anything to do with your LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS.


REFUTE MY POINTS with data and references, not stupid irrelevant conjectures about my HEIGHT and MOUSTACHE, you miserable old fool.



WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE??? You've said that it's not the mosfet drains.... so what is it then? Since there are manifestly two scope probes hooked to the common mosfet drains on the board itself.... do those signals just disappear into your rabbit hole? OR ARE THEY IN FACT DISPLAYED ON THE SCOPES SOMEWHERE?

It looks like MH's prediction about you is correct: Your house of cards is beginning to crumble around you, and you are in the "face-saving" mode again, flailing around like a landed fish.


Come on.... I've given you an ILLUSTRATED, 23-point detailed explanation of this scope shot. Take it point by point, and tell me where I am wrong and what is the CORRECT, according to you, interpretation of the 23 points I indicated on the trace.

(See an earlier post of mine for the number captions.)




Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 12:59:47 PM
You talk about my "pages and pages"... but look at what they consist of. No baseless rants or gratuitous references to Hitler, Mussolini or Savonarola from ME, irrelevancies of the lowest order, but rather I am continually ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN AND  SUPPORT your positions re various things you've said and claimed that are contradictory or frankly untrue. Rather than deal with my important points FOR WHICH I ALWAYS GIVE CHECKABLE REFERENCES, you dodge and weave and post PAGES of your own TRULY IRRELEVANT nonsense, while managing not to answer any of my points.

Imagine how much time and effort we could have saved had you CHECKED YOUR MATH when I first brought it up. But no--- with me and at least three other people here TELLING YOU AND SHOWING YOU HOW YOU ARE WRONG you still continued with your insults and lies about that matter until just today. Now you are forced to apologise.... but you still haven't POSTED THE CORRECT CALCULATION OF YOUR OWN, nor have you retracted the claim made from your bogus calculation:

Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.
Here is where you add the same energy twice. You are starting here at a temp of 82 degrees, NOT 16 degrees...you have already counted the energy required to go from 16 to 82 in the first part, now you are trying to add it again.
Quote
Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.

Correct your calculation, post the corrected figure, and correct the CONCLUSION based on your earlier WRONG CALCULATION.

To do anything else would be a another lie, Rosemary Ains-lie.

You are talking about testing a circuit in this thread. But you have shown OVER AND OVER AGAIN that you are incompetent to carry out or even interpret such a test. You talk about getting "fractions of a watt" from a recirculating diode attached to a relay... but you totally IGNORE the fact that this is COMMON, KNOWN, and most circuits incorporating RELAYS will include such a diode to protect circuitry from these INDUCTIVE COLLAPSE VOLTAGE SPIKES. You may recall--- or not, I don't care--- that I SHOWED THIS EFFECT using your first bogus circuit: when the external diode was PROPERLY APPLIED, one could siphon off energy from the circuit using it and CHARGE UP A CAPACITOR or EXTERNAL (not the running) BATTERIES with it. And since POWER is a RATE of ENERGY USAGE..... I could take all that energy I stored in a capacitor and discharge it QUICKLY... achieving HIGH wattage levels from that energy.

I say again: You have demonstrated that you are incompetent to design, test, build, explain, or evaluate electronic circuitry. The evidence for this incompetence is distributed throughout this thread. You need to prove that you are competent in these areas, or any test that YOU do... just like the video demonstration... will likely be "fraught" with errors and misinterpretations and frank LIES.

Prove that you are competent... or slide on out of the way and let the people who understand what's happening get along and test your circuit, if any of them actually can figure out JUST WHAT is to be tested and JUST WHAT the claims are.

WE STILL DON'T EVEN KNOW THE CORRECT CIRCUIT based on the info from YOU... we've had to figure it out from your video, IN SPITE of the misdirections, mistakes, and lies contained therein.

REFUTE ME, POINT BY POINT... or just take one point--- WITH REFERENCES to actual factual data. Just as in the math case--- you cannot.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
@hoptoad:

You have some experience in these matters. I ask you to look at the construction of Rosemary Ains-lie's circuit in the images from their video that FTC and I have posted. Do you see that all the "gang of four" mosfets have their gates, drains and sources hooked up with long clipleads and ALLIGATOR CLIPS clipped to those long threaded rods? What do you think is the likely result of this construction technique?

Also, I'd like to ask you to think about the sequence of events.

Since the presenter is gesturing to the diagram showing the single mosfet circuit, and since he says in the video (with Rosemary Ains-lie present and prompting him) that ALL THE MOSFETS ARE IN PARALLEL....
I think that they thought they WERE using the single-mosfet circuit in their presentation, and did not realize the error until afterwards.

So they are using one "theory" to account for the oscillations in the case they THINK they are describing.... but when critical examination of the video revealed the "error" they come back with the claim or implication that this was DELIBERATE, and they try to work the new circuit (which still looks wrong to me, because of the FG's connection to the circuit) into their conjectural explanation.

What do you think about these events? Did they deliberately lie about the circuit at first... or did they make a STUPID MISTAKE that they then are pretending is deliberate? Or is there some other explanation that does NOT condemn them for incompetence and mendacity? If so I'd be more than glad to hear it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 01:27:16 PM
@eatenbyagrue:

I see that you still choose not to answer my direct and polite (I think) questions, so I'll repeat them yet again:

Is there anything you can find in the statements of fact that I've made that is untrue, incorrect, and/or not supported by or checkable with external references?
Is there anything you can find in the statements of fact that Rosemary Ainslie has made that is untrue, incorrect, and/or not supported by checkable external references?

Just how tall are YOU, anyway, since that seems to be a qualification in Rosemary's eyes.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 01:48:47 PM
Or when the current discharge must somehow stay robust notwithstanding 1050 Ohms of resistance in its path through that function generator.
Rosemary,

I know where the 50 Ohms comes from, but where does that extra 1000 Ohms reside? Did you see the diagram I posted in REPLY #1475?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 01:55:55 PM
To aid in interpreting the photos from Rosemary's video, here's what the IRFPG50 mosfet looks like, front and back. When looking at the front of the TO-247 case style, with the pins down, the pins from LEFT to RIGHT are GATE, DRAIN, and SOURCE.

When looking at the back of the TO-247 case, the shiny metal area is referred to as the "tab" in analogy to the TO-220 package, which is the standard for lower-power mosfets. This tab is also connected internally to the drain, or Pin 2 the middle pin. So really the mosfet has 4 connections: Gate Drain Source from the pins, and Drain again from the MOUNTING TAB. This can be insulated from the heatsink while still allowing thermal conductivity by using a mica or silicone pad and/or dielectric thermal "grease". If isolation isn't required the mosfet can be mounted directly to a heatsink but thermal grease should still be used.

For comparison I have attached the data sheets for the IRFPG50 which Rosemary uses, and the IRF830a which I have been using... until my ordered PG50's arrive. If you don't have 1000 volt voltage levels, why do you need a high-voltage mosfet in a heating circuit, especially if its Rdss is so high? Oh... I forgot... it's because the IRFPG50 is the Magic Mosfet.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
Rosemary,

I know where the 50 Ohms comes from, but where does that extra 1000 Ohms reside? Did you see the diagram I posted in REPLY #1475?

It comes out of her head. They must have some really strong weed in South Africa.

ETA: What about the Function Generator's "negative" or shield lead? In the pix from the video I think it goes to the common ground point B... but the circuit diagram, I mean the "corrected" one, shows it on the other side of the shunt resistor. What do you think about this issue?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 02:28:38 PM
Rosemary claims that her device produces OU performance, based on numbers she (or somebody) has calculated from oscilloscope data dumps and spreadsheet analysis of those dumps. Yet she has shown NO COMPETENCE in actually interpreting or describing scope traces. In fact she's made many errors when trying to do that simple little thing, and she avoids doing it like it was a fatal infection or something. Which, for her "thesis" (actually only a conjecture) it is.

If any test  is to proceed without controversy, it must either avoid measurements (and the possibility of error and misinterpretation) at all, or Rosemary must show that she is competent in these matters. Since she's made so many errors and misrepresentations and misinterpretations in the past, she's got to address this point, by demonstrating that she now knows how to calculate correctly, interpret and display circuit diagrams correctly, use proper construction techniques and normally accepted terminology in her communications.

Let's start here. Rosemary, please explain the following items on this scope trace shot from your Demonstration video from last March.
What are the explanations of Items 7, 10, 11, and 12? What COLOR is the trace indicated by Item 7?  What is the explanation of Item 15? What is the explanation of Item 18?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 03:10:49 PM
ETA: What about the Function Generator's "negative" or shield lead? In the pix from the video I think it goes to the common ground point B... but the circuit diagram, I mean the "corrected" one, shows it on the other side of the shunt resistor. What do you think about this issue?

TK,

My detailed analysis of the actual build from the video demonstration and my discovery of the connection error I made many many months ago still stands. If you wish, you may go and read all that. It's been fairly well covered.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 03:16:45 PM
Golly Guys,

it seems our tickytacky TK feels insulted?  That's not right.  :'( If I were you TK I'd write a letter to Harti.  Again.
And... by the way, insulting dolt idiot Ains-lie: I am 72 inches tall,
You WISH  :D
and since there are 12 INCHES PER FOOT, that makes me a bit taller than you, ...
If you want this believed you need to stay out of your video shots.  My best guess is 5ft 6" - barefoot.  And I'm all of 5ft 9" plus a tad.
But just what do my height and moustache have to do with anything? Nothing at all...
It has considerably more to do with this thread than your absurd posturing and your equally absurd claims. And this entirely inappropriate ownership assumption of my thread.
just like you being a feeble and ugly  old woman doesn't have anything to do with your LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS.
Indeed.  I am both ugly and old.  And FEEBLE.  LOL

Rosie Pose
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 03:22:41 PM
Rosemary,

I know where the 50 Ohms comes from, but where does that extra 1000 Ohms reside? Did you see the diagram I posted in REPLY #1475?

Poynty - if the current is going through the terminal probe to terminal ground (as MileHigh explains this is termed) then it has to move through 1000 Ohms of secondary inductor wiring that lies between those those two terminals. 

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 03:26:38 PM
TK,

My detailed analysis of the actual build from the video demonstration and my discovery of the connection error I made many many months ago still stands. If you wish, you may go and read all that. It's been fairly well covered.

.99
I know I reviewed it at the time. But could you refresh my memory, please? On which side of the shunt resistor is the FG's "negative" lead to be connected? I have work here in progress, you know.
I don't think in practical terms it matters much since the shunt in her circuit is 5 resistors connected in parallel to make a value of ... what now? Stated to be 0.25 ohms? From 5 in parallel? What are the values of the individual resistors I wonder. Perhaps they are actually 1 ohm resistors..... but I doubt if they are 1.25 Ohm resistors.
Whatever, 0.20 or 0.25 or, in my circuit, 0.33 Ohms isn't going to make much difference... except when the FG shorts out the CVR.

But... your post caused me to go back to the beginning of this thread.... where Rosemary tells us that three of her batteries... well, here are her own words:
Quote
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.
Yet she says now that her batteries have never been below the fully charged level.

And by the way, Rosemary... I can PROVE that I am seventy two inches tall, and I dare say that you have NEVER seen me at full height in any of my videos. Again, you are making a fool of yourself by talking shite about things you know nothing about.

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 03:32:22 PM
... through 1000 Ohms of secondary inductor wiring that lies between those those two terminals. 
Rosemary,

Please explain what you mean by "secondary inductor wiring", and "those two terminals". The two terminals of the FG probe? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the above.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 03:38:04 PM
TK,

Maybe this will help.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 03:47:34 PM
TK,

Maybe this will help.

.99
Why do you only outline 4 of the CVR positions when there are 5 on the other side of the board? As far as I can tell that is the only difference between your photo and what I've described. The FG's negative lead is the black alligator clip connected to point B on the topside of the board, which is where all the other scope probe grounds are connected: your common ground bus. But the diagram shows it connected on the transistor side of the shunt resistor stack.

ETA: Your circuit diagram shows a resistor in series with the FG's drive output. But I don't see it on Rosemary's board "as built". Can you point that out? In my test circuit, since there is some ambiguity here, I've done it both ways, and I don't detect a difference. But if you are posting "as built" diagrams... well, let's be really sure we've got them right.

But it looks like you are supporting my exact point: the diagrams most recently posted here of the circuit that Rosemary shows STILL aren't correct, because as YOU have shown here clearly, the FG is connected on the battery side of the shunt, but the diagram (not the one you just posted, but the one we have actually been using) shows it connected differently.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 03:48:03 PM
I know I reviewed it at the time. But could you refresh my memory, please?
LOL.  This from a man who assures us that he's been dogging my history with somewhat obsessive interest.  What a Joke.  Like the time that he accused me of pretending to be friends of Professor Steven E Jones.  He STILL doesn't understand the issue at hand.  What an IDIOT.  And he expects me to take him seriously.Which makes this bit of posting as articulate as Glen Lettenmaier manages when he REALLY tests his competence...
On which side of the shunt resistor is the FG's "negative" lead to be connected? I have work here in progress, you know. I don't think in practical terms it matters much since the shunt in her circuit is 5 resistors connected in parallel to make a value of ... what now? Stated to be 0.25 ohms? From 5 in parallel? What are the values of the individual resistors I wonder. Perhaps they are actually 1 ohm resistors..... but I doubt if they are 1.25 Ohm resistors. Whatever, 0.20 or 0.25 or, in my circuit, 0.33 Ohms isn't going to make much difference... except when the FG shorts out the CVR.
somewhat 'stumbling' and 'insecure' as MileHigh puts it. And this....
But... your post caused me to go back to the beginning of this thread.... where Rosemary tells us that three of her batteries... well, here are her own words: Yet she says now that her batteries have never been below the fully charged level.
Yet MORE evidence of inattention.  WE WERE DONATED 9 BATTERIES.  We have 6 that have NEVER BEEN RECHARGED.
And by the way, Rosemary... I can PROVE that I am seventy two inches tall...
THEN PROVE IT.
and I dare say that you have NEVER seen me at full height in any of my videos.
Your 'littleness' TK is manifest NOT ONLY in your videos but in your posts.  It is my opinion that you - Mussolini - Hitler and Savonarola - have MUCH in common.  Starting with an inordinate love of monopolising the conversation. 

Kindest regards
Rosie posie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 03:57:58 PM
How many shunt resistors?
What are their individual values? For them to total 0.25 ohms, if they are identical and in parallel, what would their values have to be? If they are 1 ohm value.... what would the total resistance of the shunt be?
What is the value STATED in the diagram for the shunt resistance? What value was used in your calculation of current done from the voltage drop across this resistance?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 04:02:18 PM
Why do you only outline 4 of the CVR positions when there are 5 on the other side of the board?
If you look closely at the underside, you will see that only 4 resistors are "bussed" together to comprise the 0.25 Ohm CSR. They are presumably 1 Ohm resistors. The 5th 1 Ohm resistor does not appear to be connected. There is some writing underneath designating what that other 1 Ohm resistor is for, but I can't make it out. One end of it doesn't appear to be connected to anything.

ETA: My guess is that they started with the intention of using a 1 Ohm shunt, and left it there unconnected in case they wanted to go back after moving to the 0.25 Ohm shunt.

Quote
ETA: Your circuit diagram shows a resistor in series with the FG's drive output. But I don't see it on Rosemary's board "as built". Can you point that out?
I was not able to find a 0.5 Ohm resistor in series with the FG either, but I included it because Rosemary's original circuit diagram showed it, and it doesn't make any difference if it was there anyway. I assumed they measured the FG cable and it was 0.5 Ohm (not unreasonable since it looks like light coax), and that is another reason I included it.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 04:03:18 PM
TK,

Maybe this will help.

.99
POYNTY.  What are you saying?  I've just checked on our apparatus.  Typically the signal probe is applied to gate of Q1 and the the terminal to the gate of Q2.  The demo included considerably more than was contained in the video.  And the shunt was most certainly NOT in that loop.  We showed that ONLY for the duration of filming because we were trying to accommodate no less than 8 'clip' positions on a limited space available - to run two scopes simultaneously.  Give me a break here.

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 04:07:17 PM
Note how the focus of Rosemary's idiocy has shifted. This thread is no longer about proving her assertions, it is about ME proving that HER assertion about my HEIGHT is wrong.

Why doesn't she simply answer my questions and address my points? What's the green trace representing, what are her explanations of the items I ask about on the scope trace, what about "PER", and so on and so forth. She won't address any of these substantive points with references TO PROVE ME WRONG, she simply compares me to Hitler, maligns my moustaches as if I were Hercule Poirot, and makes idiotic assertions about my height. How tall is Stephen Hawking, I wonder? And does it have anything at all to do with anything at all except his wardrobe?

What's the green trace supposed to represent, Rosemary? You are right about one thing: I will continue to attack your lies and mistakes one by one if necessary, until you correct and retract them, I die, or Stefan closes this thread. You want it to stop: THEN CORRECT YOUR ERRORS and stop lying.
What's the green trace?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 04:08:42 PM
POYNTY.  What are you saying?  I've just checked on our apparatus.  Typically the signal probe is applied to gate of Q1 and the the terminal to the gate of Q2.  The demo included considerably more than was contained in the video.  And the shunt was most certainly NOT in that loop.  We showed that ONLY for the duration of filming because we were trying to accommodate no less than 8 'clip' positions on a limited space available - to run two scopes simultaneously.  Give me a break here.

Rosie

Rosemary,

I spent considerable time tracing out the top and bottom connections of the proto-board shown in the video. The labeling and accompanying schematic are accurate per what was shown in the video demonstration.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 04:12:56 PM
If you look closely at the underside, you will see that only 4 resistors are "bussed" together to comprise the 0.25 Ohm CSR. They are presumably 1 Ohm resistors. The 5th 1 Ohm resistor does not appear to be connected. There is some writing underneath designating what that other 1 Ohm resistor is for, but I can't make it out. One end of it doesn't appear to be connected to anything.
I was not able to find a 0.5 Ohm resistor in series with the FG either, but I included it because Rosemary's original circuit diagram showed it, and it doesn't make any difference if it was there anyway. I assumed they measured the FG cable and it was 0.5 Ohm (not unreasonable since it looks like light coax), and that is another reason I included it.

.99
It was my impression that the fifth resistor was connected on the top surface of the board. If it's not... why is it there at all?
Regardless... going back to your "other" forum thread looking for your analysis, I found some very interesting analysis from humbugger about these resistors and all the stray inductances and wiring. Reply #246, you-know-where. Of course that is preaching to a choir here and it's something that Rosemary hasn't the wit to understand.

Do you really REALLY think they measured the resistance of the cable? With what? They haven't shown the competence necessary to measure a small resistance with a DMM, and I don't see any other resistance measuring gear around.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 04:22:33 PM
It was my impression that the fifth resistor was connected on the top surface of the board. If it's not... why is it there at all?
My ETA from above:
Quote
ETA: My guess is that they started with the intention of using a 1 Ohm shunt, and left it there unconnected in case they wanted to go back after moving to the 0.25 Ohm shunt.

Quote
Do you really REALLY think they measured the resistance of the cable?
It's the ONLY logical explanation. Yes, they DO have a Fluke meter there on hand. Either they measured it, or assumed it would be about that amount.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 04:26:52 PM
Rosemary,

I spent considerable time tracing out the top and bottom connections of the proto-board shown in the video. The labeling and accompanying schematic are accurate per what was shown in the video demonstration.

You see... now she's claiming that the Q1-Q2 diagram is correct for the video, when the diagram IN the video and the presenter's narration both say that all the mosfets are strictly parallel. I think that they didn't know AT THE TIME OF THE VIDEO that the error had been made. Yet now she claims it is always done that way.

Just so I can get on with my OWN work... since I have mosfets coming, I've bought batteries, gathered equipment together.... Please please please can we agree on just WHAT circuit is going to be tested?  If the claims made in the video are of some other circuit than is actually shown.... that is a bit misleading, isn't it? At least it is when I do it, according to some.

What is the circuit to be tested, please? Please give all component values like resistances and inductances, so that I can do just what Rosemary is afraid of: hook that sucker up to some real power measuring equipment, some integrating oscilloscopes, and do some battery drawdown  tests that WILL stand up in the court of SCIENCE.

Please give me the exact circuit of this open-source device so that I can test it for myself. Include the specs for all those clipleads too, because that's where the oscillations are likely coming from. Oh... and what kind of Paint is that on the board? Is it OK if I use a different color? Like maybe GREEN?

What are the frequency (this much I already know), the amplitude, and the offset settings of the INSTEK function generator? Am I going to have to purchase this economy-line 220 dollar instrument to supplement my laboratory-quality, calibrated, Interstate F43? For which, by the way, I paid nearly 300 dollars-- for a twenty year old USED instrument -- plus a 200 mile drive to pick it up, because of its discrete component construction and bulletproof circuitry.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 05:09:40 PM
Ahh.. now I think I understand why Rosemary has suddenly begun discussing my height and calling me a "little" person. She thinks that one of her minions has identified me.
Unfortunately, as anybody whose wits HAVEN'T ended can hear for themselves, that "little person" from Texas can be heard speaking on some of the famous Steorn videos, and his voice and speech patterns -- and indeed, height and moustaches -- may be compared with mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtqYcLR4skU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtqYcLR4skU)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 05:37:21 PM
Rosemary,

I spent considerable time tracing out the top and bottom connections of the proto-board shown in the video. The labeling and accompanying schematic are accurate per what was shown in the video demonstration.
Nothing wrong with your work Poynty.  As ever.  I'm pointing out to you that the demonstration was simply to show that negative wattage and the co-incidence in numbers between both machines.  That arrangement of the CSR's is absolutely NOT relevant to the data in our paper.  That arrangement was simply to accommodate more probes than we could comfortably manage on our apparatus - at that time - for that demonstration. 

Am I the only one experiencing this - but it seems that there's whole intervals of about an hour or so that I simply can't log into this thread?  I tried looking at the 'viewers' which usually shows if everyone's stuck on the home page - and I couldn't even get in there.  And it's happening more and more frequently.  I think Harti needs to look to getting a bigger service provider?  Is that the term?  The messages I get are that the site is 'TOO BUSY'  'TRY LATER'.  Most irritating.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 05:52:29 PM
And Tinsel Koala - disabuse yourself of any assumption that I must ANSWER you about anything at all.  You're grasp of the issues at hand are absurdly irrelevant and inappropriate to science.  And your manner of address is that vulgar and that abusive that it is inappropriate to forum guidelines let alone to the any reasonably civilized communication.  And like all psychopathic bullies - you rely on this rather overblown method of 'attack' for your ordinance.  Your bullets are blunt TK.  We are not here at Sunday School - relying on your opinions.  There is only one absurd player here that I can see.  And it's you.  What are you thinking?  That I must answer your questions?  Dear God. 

I am under NO OBLIGATION to engage in any kind of conversation with you - other than of my own choosing.  I do not work for you.  I owe you NOTHING but my contempt.  And I have that in bountiful supply.  Would that you were bigger.  Sadly.  You suffer from the 'small man syndrome'.  And we all know where that takes one.  Just look at Hitler - for God's sake. Now.  Why don't you rally your forces?  Why not get MileHigh or Glen to post another 8/10's of another page.  Or just do that yourself.  Lest our readers be reminded how utterly ridiculous are your alleged 'REPLICATIONS' and your absurd 'ANALYSES'.  All those EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS.  LOL.  And here where I write LOL I actually mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose

added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 06:12:14 PM
You may not have to answer ME, but you will have to answer to Someone eventually, that's certain.
And YOU may not have to answer my questions, but someone will, eventually, because they need to be answered if your FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO GAIN A MONETARY PRIZE is to have any success. The people here may be a credulous lot, but nobody is going to give you any money unless you can prove your claims, and I know you cannot.

Refute me with FACTS and REFERENCES, not with insults and stupidities and lies.

From a year ago.... humbugger did the definitive work and analysis of your idiotic circuit and claims.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=46f5f20e5dbe9f31e7948b27ff3dc49e&topic=13.msg12232#msg12232 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=46f5f20e5dbe9f31e7948b27ff3dc49e&topic=13.msg12232#msg12232)

Are you going to try to tell us that I am humbugger, or that he somehow isn't qualified EITHER since he disagrees with you?

And THE DUTY CYCLE IDIOCY COMES UP AGAIN !!!
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=46f5f20e5dbe9f31e7948b27ff3dc49e&topic=13.msg12261#msg12261 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=46f5f20e5dbe9f31e7948b27ff3dc49e&topic=13.msg12261#msg12261)
When a mosfet wired this way is OFF, the DRAIN VOLTAGE IS HIGH and when it's ON, the DRAIN VOLTAGE IS LOW. This confusion of YOURS and many of your sycophants goes all the way back to the Quantum article claiming COP>17 in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT.

AND THIS IS WHY IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO KNOW JUST WHAT THE GREEN TRACE IS, which you claim is NOT the common drain trace...

Also, I have repeatedly offered my TinselKoil for testing ACCORDING TO YOUR SAME PROTOCOLS for comparison purposes. Your measly switched mosfets--if they are indeed switching at all instead of just staying on all the time -- pale in comparison to the power levels I am able to achieve on SIMILAR INPUT POWER... that is, apparently none--- as your idiotic kludge. And I'm willing to prove that assertion JUST AS SOON AS YOU PROVE YOURS.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 06:53:35 PM
Also, I have repeatedly offered my TinselKoil for testing ACCORDING TO YOUR SAME PROTOCOLS for comparison purposes. Your measly switched mosfets--if they are indeed switching at all instead of just staying on all the time -- pale in comparison to the power levels I am able to achieve on SIMILAR INPUT POWER... that is, apparently none--- as your idiotic kludge. And I'm willing to prove that assertion JUST AS SOON AS YOU PROVE YOURS.

LOL.  If I didn't know better I'd think you're in competition with me.  Which is hugely amusing.  The only competition that any of us have is with Cold Fusion and the inevitable march of nitinol technologies.  Whatever is being done on this little circuit of ours rather pales in comparison.  I'm only plugging this thread to have a reasonable chance to ASSURE our readers and members that Over Unity is most CERTAINLY breachable. That's got to help.  I'd have thought?  And then.  There's the kicker.  We think we know WHY it's possible to breach this elusive barrier.  All you can manage in that rather tiny little mind of yours TK is the deluded assumption that anything that you do or I do can possibly matter in the light of REAL PROGRESS happening all over the place.  You're way out of step here.

But nonetheless.  Press on with your absurdities.  As ever - let me assure you - I am under no obligation to comment on your work.  Certainly NOT while it is so utterly inappropriately IMPOSED on this thread when it's not even RELEVANT to the issue.  What a ridiculous little man you are.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 07:06:59 PM
And let me add this TK

Poynty knows the real issue - so even does MileHigh.  I think just about everyone does bar you.  And guess what?  Nor will you ever grasp the issue.  You don't have the required acumen.  At least when they argue it's APPROPRIATE.  All you can do is mutter about MOSFETS and SIGNAL GENERATORS.  And then you propose to do a test?  Without even understanding the point of that test?  What a class act.  You and Glen make an exceptionally good team.  No wonder you both see fit to dominate plus/minus 60 pages of non-stop self-absorbed, irrelevant nonsense.  God spare me such weak opponents.  I keep hoping for a relevant dialogue.  You're incapable of it.

Again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2012, 07:30:48 PM
there you go TK

You've got another recruit.  Definitely a kindred spirit.  He shares your love of inappropriate invective and a similar level of spite.  Highly appropriate for your team.

Rosie Pose

If your 'NERD technology' was for real you would not have to go through all this crap so put a sock in it.

If your  'NERD technology' was for real we would have figured that out by now so put a sock in it.


 If your  'NERD technology' was for real you would not have to defend it to these lengths so put a sock in it you attention w h o r e!
It's the worms crawling out of the woodwork.
R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 07:38:48 PM
And here you go Rosemary.

I took my IRF830a mosfets off of my nice circuit board, closed my eyes, and cut some random lengths of wire to hook them back up with. So now I'm simulating the wire lengths in your demonstration. This was inspired by my rereading of the posts from a year ago covering this EXACT SAME ISSUE, on some other forum that I've linked to somewhere above. And guess what.... take a look. As usual, my top trace is the function generator's input to the mosfets. The bottom trace, which incidentally is GREEN and ac coupled... is the mosfet common drain. Here I'm showing it at 10 volts per division AC coupled in the first shot, then 100 volts per division AC coupled in the second shot ... does it look familiar to you at all? Where have we seen this kind of trace set before, I wonder?

(It's much faster to post results using the still camera.. .but I've also taken a video and it should be available in an hour or so after processing and uploading to YT.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 24, 2012, 07:57:46 PM
My dear Powercat.  This is simply not true.  But if it helps you to think this then feel free.  I'm not sure that I care either way.

Rosie Pose


Your cavalier attitude towards the truth is so unscientific it makes you uncredible, and until you retract your ridiculous claims I will continue to warn people not to expect any free energy from your circuit.

You are the only one saying this statement is not true.

How many years would you call a fair chance ? Stefan has given you three threads and still nobody can produce excess  energy from any of your circuits.
Interesting how you're attacking the majority of people who post here and calling them trolls, when you are the one wasting everybody's time with your BS claims.
In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 24, 2012, 08:20:34 PM
Rosemary:

Quote
The only competition that any of us have is with Cold Fusion and the inevitable march of nitinol technologies.

I had a chuckle with that one.  Your qualifying skills are almost nonexistent.  Gobbling up 'free energy' propositions like jellybeans.

For the Nitinol, could you gauge that clip for how old it is?  It looks like it dates from 1980 or 1981.  So that has been one hell of a long march, Chairman Mao would be proud.  Have you ever in your life heard of a Nitinol engine?  Plus if you watched the clip they clearly indicate it's not free energy, just a way to get mechanical energy from heat.

What you would realize if you were astute is that the technology did not succeed.  That's the way it works in the real world, some things simply don't pan out.

You often refer to cold fusion as a free energy technology.  But by definition it's not a free energy technology.  Why do you say that?  Meanwhile the chances of Rossi and Defkalion being real are a faint hope at this point in time.  They have never shown credible data from independent third-party testers even though they said that they would.  The chances of them breaking out into the lay press are minuscule.  The lay press won't touch either of them unless they are sure it's real.  It begs the question again about how you qualify these kinds of things.  Why the blind belief when there is no credible data that either one of them has a working and viable system for producing commercial heat or electrical power?  That's the issue, not whether or not somebody got anomalous results in a test tube.

You are pretending that you don't need to respond to any of TK's questions about your actual setup in order to help him replicate it.  You are claiming that he is rude but you are fully aware that that's like the pot calling the kettle black.  It's just you being nervous and uncomfortable again because you can't explain some of the nuances related to your own circuit and you don't want to admit that.  I would not be surprised if you don't have the slightest clue what the green trace means.

Finally, the question about the main current loop of the circuit flowing directly through the function generator is not slipping through the cracks.  Poynt and myself want you to explain how it is that there is 1050 ohms of resistance.  Your last answer was inadequate and we don't know what you are talking about.  Why do you say the resistance is 1050 ohms?

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 08:43:40 PM
Rosemary, as anyone reading can tell you, the one refusing to carry on a meaningful discussion is YOU.  You are claiming a monetary prize based on the claim that your batteries have not discharged measureably even though you have done 18 months or more of testing like the one where you made the erroneous calculation AND CONCLUSION. For evidence you have offered only oscilloscope data WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS and .... words.

Several people posting here have proposed perfectly acceptable tests of your claims, and you find any reason you can not to perform them. Fine. I WILL PERFORM THEM, if I have to reproduce your crazy circuit down to the last error and cliplead color. When I do, you will no longer be able even to claim your prize, because I will have gotten there first. Not that I'm going to be claiming any prizes based on false claims, you understand.
So YOU HAD BETTER HURRY UP and stop maligning me and get cracking. AGREE WITH .99 or come to some acceptable compromise that ELIMINATES YOUR SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION, and soon.

I see nothing wrong with the test I have proposed. Use an arrangement that precludes charging by the FG: I have shown how this can be done, by one of many methods. Personally I would use an optoisolator. Maybe someone can explain that to you; you will still get your oscillations (I think) even with the optoisolator preventing the FG from providing power. Then have six fully charged batteries. Select three and set aside. Run your circuit, make soup or tea, HEATING A LOAD preferably to boiling, since that's easy for you, for a decent time on the other three. Let's say two or three days. Video using a timelapse webcam -- twenty dollars for the camera and free software. Your grandchild can probably help you here. Then take those batteries and the ones that were set aside and do a "dark bulb" rundown comparison, again on timelapse video. It would be best if you use low-capacity batteries, but if you want to use your 40 A-H ones, fine. But you will have to charge them conventionally first.

First bulb to go dark..... loses. Repeat the test a few times, randomizing and conventionally recharging the batteries before each test. Three out of five for the big win.

And not a single instrumental measurement or interpretation need be done by anyone anywhere, except for the "smart" automatic automotive battery charger deciding when the battery is fully charged.

I think .99's test is better and should be performed as soon as possible. But for a test that would convince ANYBODY (if done honestly) do mine. Harvey's actually, since I think he first proposed it waaay back when you were annoying the Energetic Forum with your nonsense.


OH... and I take back what I said about you being an ineffectual old woman. In fact I think that you are a genuinely evil withered and dessicated crone, the very definition of an under-the-bridge dwelling troll, getting off on making people react to you. Comparing me to Hitler--- and using my alleged "shortness" as "evidence" in support...... you really are an evil crone.

Bear in mind, please.... the owner of this thread lives in Germany, and might be able to illustrate one or two differences between me and dear Adolph. Or are you as naive about history as you are about mathematics, physics, electronics, publishing standards, editorial requirements and science in general?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2012, 08:57:56 PM
TK,

It looks like you are getting very close there. Where is the 0-line for the Drain voltage? Can we get a zoom-in on the Drain wave form?

The only difference I see so far is the gradual turn-on, and turn-off of the oscillation absent in your wave form. This could be due to the larger capacitance associated with the PG50 vs. your 830's.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: tak22 on March 24, 2012, 09:44:29 PM
As one of the 3 occasional viewers of this soap opera, I've been struggling
with trying to find an analogy for what's going on here. It's not a debate,
it's not all that scientific (some is), it's not respectful (some is), it's not very
productive, and definitely not dull.


It's not bullies against a weakling.
It's not MIB against the courageous.
It's not the little guy fighting TPTB.


But you know what really fits? Comedians mocking religions.
On the one side are groups determined to believe everything from the distant
past that was created to control them, and on the other side a group of
irreverent souls that know they have a goldmine of material that can't be
defended that's just waiting for the perfect punchline.


I can now follow this better knowing the stage it's on.


tak



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 10:01:49 PM
TK,

It looks like you are getting very close there. Where is the 0-line for the Drain voltage? Can we get a zoom-in on the Drain wave form?

The only difference I see so far is the gradual turn-on, and turn-off of the oscillation absent in your wave form. This could be due to the larger capacitance associated with the PG50 vs. your 830's.
The zero line for the drain voltage (looking at it DC coupled) is about 20 volts below the level of the horizontal line that breaks into oscillations. This whole waveform can be moved around quite a bit using the FG's amplitude and offset controls, but appears just fine at zero offset (using a +- square wave) when the amplitude gets over about 7 v p-p.
I'm not sure I know what you mean about "gradual turn on". In Rosemary's video they are using 10 Hz from the FG. My scope can't display a stable trace that slow--, nor can I "freeze" the trace like the Tek can do. The screenshots of my oscs are taken with 1kHz from the FG, but... and I just checked to be quite sure -- the oscs are there at 10 Hz too and look just like hers to my eye....
I'll get a zoom in in a few minutes so we can see the frequency.

Meanwhile... what do YOU, that is, .99, think of using an optocoupler circuit to isolate the FG from the current path? At this point--- since I now agree with humburger that the oscs are completely caused by the stray inductances rather than a groundloop pathway.... I don't think the oscs would be affected by this kind of coupling. But I don't know for sure and I don't have the components on hand to check. Maybe someone could sim it?
This is the kind of thing I mean:
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 10:29:04 PM
OK... recall that the FG in the Ainslie demo video is set at 10 Hz, confirmed by the scope trace timebase setting.
My scope won't be interpretable over the internet at 10 Hz. My earlier photos were taken at 1 kHz from the FG.

In the first photo:
Here I've set the FG to drive the circuit at 100 kiloHertz. The scope's timebase is set to 2 microseconds per division. The bottom trace , the common drains, is DC coupled, 50 volts per division, and the baseline is at one full division below the bottom edge of the blue tape (sorry, I should have changed the tape, will do next time). (Perspective makes the tape look higher than it is; I mean the scale division line a FULL division below, not the one right at the tape). So to my eye the straight-across level looks to be about 20 volts. And these look like 8 periods per 2 microseconds, or about 4 MHz... higher than I expected.

In the second photo:
Here I've set the FG to drive the circuit at 100 Hz, but I've cranked the timebase up to 1 microsecond per division. Channel settings the same as before.

(the FG was set to zero offset for these tests, the FG trace is set to 5 volts per division)

It looks to me like the oscs are at about 4 MHz in any case regardless of the stimulus. I'll try to get a precise value with the Philips counter if it seems important.

(It's also important to realize that this is NOT a true 2 beam scope; it's a 2-channel scope, and here it's being used in "alt" mode to display both channels at once. This can result in incorrect time synchronization between the two traces sometimes, so try not to read too much into the displayed phase relationships. Know your gear ! I wish I had my old Philips dualbeam scope here.... )
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 24, 2012, 10:50:39 PM
TK:

I hope that my comments will help with the caveat that I am not going to be digging into the low-level nuts and bolts of the circuit, I have been there and done that.

What the RAT team focused on was the oscillation that took place specifically when the function generator was outputting -5 volts.  So they had the function generator negatively offset such that the square wave was outputting 0 volts and -5 volts.  They slowed the function generator down to see longer bursts of oscillation at -5 volts.

So what that means is that the function generator has absolutely nothing to do with the actual operation of the circuit.  When you look at the schematic you will see that with -5 volts output, that Q1 is always off and the Q2 array will be in oscillation with the only path for the current to complete the loop being through the function generator itself.  So I don't see a possible solution with opto-isolators.

So, you could completely eliminate the function generator with a 5-volt battery in series with a 50-ohm resistor.

What you will notice if you follow the voltage drops as you go around the main loop, is that the function generator's -5 volts is added to the main battery bank's voltage.  So if we assume five 12-volt batteries the total voltage that's powering the circuit is (5 x 12) + 5 = 65 volts.   In other words, 7.7% of the power provided to the circuit comes from the function generator itself.  There are three main power dissipation points in the circuit; the inductive resistor, the Q2 MOSFET array, and the 50-ohm resistor inside the function generator.

It just occurred to me in looking at Poynt's reference schematic in posting #1505, that you notice that the current flow completely bypasses the 0.25-ohm CSR.   Is it possible that this observation slipped through the cracks?  If yes it would mean that the CSR data is useless and all of Rosemary's DSO calculations are invalid.  I am not sure if this is true but it may need to be investigated.

So the bottom line is this:  -5 volts from the function generator will induce a forward bias on the Q2 array's gate-source voltage and the Q2 array will switch on.  Since MOSFETS are prone to oscillation, and not forgetting the stray inductance in the wires, and not forgetting the 50-ohm output impedance of the function generator, the gate input of the Q2 array is just itching to be 'tickled' and all of the ducks are lined up to tickle.  So you get spontaneous oscillation.

As we know, spontaneous oscillation is more an annoyance than anything else, but Rosemary thought that she discovered something.

All in all, it's a nonsensical circuit.

I hope my little treatise helped.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 11:11:18 PM
@MH: what you say here agrees with my own findings, except that I don't believe the part about them only having the FG set for negative output. She has said that they used the offset control, and as my work has shown the scope trace won't reflect the true output that the circuit sees when the FG is loaded down by it. If you watch my latest video you can see what happens with symmetrical square wave, positive going only, and negative going only offsets. There IS a region right in the middle where ALL the mosfets are being turned on and the oscillations are present on both phases of the signal. This can be seen in the video, and the current measured from the battery by a simple inline DMM..... which WE HAVE NEVER SEEN FROM ROSEMARY....... duh, why hasn't anyone insisted on this?----- shows just under 2 amps at that moment, and the mosfets-- all of them-- get hot fast since they are improperly heat-sunk. FFS, I just superglued the heatsinks to the backs of the mosfets !! While the more typical settings that make traces that look just like hers give me a typical 170-200 mA from the battery... and yes only the Q2 mosfets are turning on, as attested to by my burnt fingertips. Oh...and the noncontact IR thermometer too.

It should be clear by now that the main function of the function generator is to... wait for it.... turn OFF the oscillations. You can clearly see that when the FG's output goes HIGH in my system's scope shots... and in Rosemary's too, the blue trace is her FG...the oscillations go off.

(And yes.. I certainly did notice, and have mentioned before, that the CVR isn't properly seeing all the current flows in the system. Of course her "data" here is invalid.)

ETA: I've been reading the thread on the other forum from exactly one year ago. It is like an exact image of this thread here and now, except that I am playing the "humburger" role with parts instead of sims, and all the other cast members are nearly the same. It's very eerie. I suggest starting with page 10 or 11; there's no need to go all the way back to 2009. Just start where the discussion of the video starts... and you will think you are here again, but without the troll crone Red Queen shouting "off with their heads" at the slightest provocation.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 24, 2012, 11:18:41 PM
TK:

I think that it's worth it to mention that Rosemary and her whole team worked on this circuit for months, and once they discovered the oscillations when the function generator output -5 volts all of the focus was on this event.  All of the data captures for this most recent incarnation of the RAT circuit were related to this oscillation only.

Rosemary thought that she had some 'secret sauce' and hid the actual configuration of the schematic from the public when she presented her new circuit.  I believe it was Point that reverse-engineered the circuit from the demo clip and then Rosie Posie fessed up.

So, that means for months and months neither Rosemary or any of the other members of the RAT team were even aware of how the circuit was actually operating.  That's why I called them a nasty name suggesting gross incompetence in an earlier posting and I think that it was justified.  That's why I have very little faith that they could do a fairly complicated battery draw-down test properly.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 24, 2012, 11:29:15 PM
TK:

I think that it's worth it to mention that Rosemary and her whole team worked on this circuit for months, and once they discovered the oscillations when the function generator output -5 volts all of the focus was on this event.  All of the data captures for this most recent incarnation of the RAT circuit were related to this oscillation only.

Rosemary thought that she had some 'secret sauce' and hid the actual configuration of the schematic from the public when she presented her new circuit.  I believe it was Point that reverse-engineered the circuit from the demo clip and then Rosie Posie fessed up.

So, that means for months and months neither Rosemary or any of the other members of the RAT team were even aware of how the circuit was actually operating.  That's why I called them a nasty name suggesting gross incompetence in an earlier posting and I think that it was justified.  That's why I have very little faith that they could do a fairly complicated battery draw-down test properly.

MileHigh

Interesting spin you put on it. Very charitable.

I think they simply had no idea that they wired the circuit wrong in the first place. They tried a single mosfet first, then someone pointed out that it could never handle the current required for decent heat in the load, so they decided to add the other 4. Look at the board: it is NOT the single mosfet that is installed "wrong".... actually it is the 4 on big heatsinks !!  Then they saw the massive oscillations, creamed their jeans, and probably did not realise the difference in schematic diagrams until  .99 pointed it out and MADE her acknowledge it.

Of course they aren't going to do any tests at all, much less properly. The excuse will be either that Rosemary can't find two "academics" that she approves of to participate, or that she and .99 can't agree on some fundamental point of interpretation of instrument readings. This is my prediction.... PROVE ME WRONG. Please.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 24, 2012, 11:31:36 PM
TK:

Yes I agree that if you have a positive swing in the function generator output you get oscillations also and this time the current flows through the CSR.  Magic oscillations abound!

You may want to double-check with Rosemary, I think the only analysis that she is interested in is when the function generator outputs -5 volts.

It sounds like there was always was and there is a real possibility of blowing the 50-ohm resistor inside the function generator.  I think it's two one-watt 100-ohm resistors in parallel.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 01:41:11 AM
Then why use an FG at all? As humburger showed a year ago, all you have to do is poke the circuit once and it will oscillate until you "unpoke" it.  Just set the thing up, and give the Q2 gates a little pulse of positive. The thing will start ringing and won't stop until you turn those gates off again with a corresponding ground or "negative" pulse to drain the charge away.
Without seeing what the FG is set to, UNLOADED, I don't think it's possible to actually say or determine from scope traces what the circuit is actually getting from the FG the way it's hooked up here.


But what about my optocoupler idea? Would the addition of the optocouplers preserve the oscillations and mosfet switching? I know it would take the FG out of the loop as current source.
I think this: The optocouplers might work as I anticipate, but Rosemary won't accept the circuit built that way even though it oscillates and makes all the other effects... because it won't charge the batteries.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 03:23:58 AM
(snip)
You may want to double-check with Rosemary, I think the only analysis that she is interested in is when the function generator outputs -5 volts.
(snip)
MileHigh
What does this mean? If the FG is "set" to "output -5 volts" at, say, one cycle per ten seconds, and I check the terminals with a voltmeter, what am I going to see? And then if I reverse the terminals at the voltmeter, what am I going to see?

Or even simpler: make an LED pair, parallel but anode of one to cathode of the other one and vice versa. Let's call this a "backtoback pair". Now hook your pair to the output of the FG set to make an "output of - 5 volts". What do you see? Turn the LED pair around, what do you see? You will see that one LED lights in each case.... the one with the ANODE towards the "negative" output lead of the FG. What this means is that there is a 5 volt potential difference between the terminals of the FG.... only the reference level has changed. The FG will still put out "positive" wrt the other terminal of itself. How could the LED light at all if the FG was putting out "- 5 volts" ?

So the one lead of the FG's output swings from -5 volts to zero volts WRT the other lead. The second lead of the FG's output must therefore be at a POSITIVE 5 volts ABOVE the - 5 volt setting when it is at "zero" or ground potential. I know this is confusing and I'm not explaining it well, nor do I yet know what it does in the circuit. But try the back-to-back LED pair in your favorite FG or sim and you will see what I mean. All it really means IF THE FG IS TRULY FLOATING is that the red and black wires exchange sign. When the FG is NOT floating, as in the Ainslie case, I'm not certain YET what the effect is but I doubt if it has any effect on the oscillations EXCEPT to confine them to one or the other set of mosfets. I can put the oscs in either q1 or q2 or both, make them large or small, whatever, depending on the FG's amplitude and offset.

In the Ainslie circuit, the FG's "negative" lead is connected to the common grounds of everything else, either directly or thru the shunt resistor.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 25, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
TK:

Some more thoughts and some history for your consideration.

Poynt simulated the circuit and removed the function generator completely and substituted a voltage source for the function generator like I mentioned.  He added some inductance to account for the wire lengths, he may have added some stray capacitances, and the circuit oscillated just fine with a comparable waveform to Rose's setup.  Naturally the virtual power probes showed the real power consumption of the simulated circuit but I think Rosie refused to acknowledge this part of the simulation.  She was in a tizzy to see the oscillation though.

You mentioned the function generator unloaded vs. loaded in the circuit.  I have been simplifying that in my head and didn't really consider that which was a mistake.  Part of the reason is that Rosie's unlabelled 'waveforms' in the DSO captures almost give me a headache to look at.  However, if we suppose that Rosie and the RATs were looking at the CSR and the voltage across the CSR was just a junk inductive/capacitive coupling waveform, and not the true current waveform, then that would be a *BOMB* for the RATs.

But then why not use the function generator as the CSR itself?   When you look at the unloaded function generator voltage you see the true voltage being output by the high-quality negative-feedback amplifier on the far side of the 50-ohm output resistor.  That voltage is always rock steady no matter what.  So if you scope the voltage at the function generator output when it is outputting "-5 volts" under the circuit load, then you have the current waveform!  You also have to assume that the 50-ohm resistor + interconnects inside the function generator form a near-zero inductance path.

Of course you might have to export a data dump (not sure if you have that level of equipment) and then just process it in a spreadsheet to compensate for the offset and resistor value to get the true current waveform when the Q2 MOSFET array is a quivering and in delicious spastic feedback mode.  Then you have the elusive true current waveform without having to "change the setup."  Because we know that if you change anything "all bets are off."

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 04:08:11 AM
Can you remind me again why " I " need the exact CVR waveform?

 8)

(I have not yet even _begun_ to roll out the heavy artillery..... )

(And yes, fwiw, included in the arsenal is a top of the line TEK DPSO with math and export capability, but how many shovels do you need to rebury a zombie anyway?)



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 25, 2012, 04:30:00 AM
TK:
 
 I'll try respond to the issues that you raised.
 
 Agreed that there is no need for the function generator at all.  Rosemary and the RATs simply did not realize that.  Agreed on unloaded vs. loaded and that prompted me to do my previous posting.
 
 With respect to the optocoupler, don't you think it's a moot point since we know the function generator serves no real purpose?  The real way to take the function generator out of the loop is to have the proper voltage source and a 50-ohm resistor, i.e.; exactly what Poynt did when he simulated the circuit.  That way you preserve the path for the current to flow.
 
 However, the other side of that argument is that Rosie Posie might go bonkers if you removed the function generator.
 
 When I say that the function generator is outputting "-5 volts" that's the center-conductor signal terminal relative to the outer ground terminal on the BNC connector.  So the ground shield connection is "0 volts" and the signal terminal is "-5 volts" while the function generator is outputting the low component of a sloooow negatively-biased square wave.  Note relative to Poynt's reference schematic in post #1505, the function generator is not floating.  It's tied to a common ground point along with the battery set and the scopes.
 
 I hope that is clear to you.  For the two back-two-back LEDs, let me shift gears on you.  Since the LED pair cause a relatively minor voltage drop relative to the battery set + function generator total voltage supplied to the circuit, it would be fun to insert them in series into the main current loop to get the "LEDs of Doom" effect where they clearly show that the batteries are draining as they power the RAT circuit.  To do a quick and dirty test to show which is the dominant direction for the current flow.
 
 One last comment; everything I am saying is based on the Q2 array quivering only because of the negative voltage output by the function generator.  So I confining myself to "RAT oscillation mode."  If you want to explore what happens when Q1 switches on, that's your show!
 
 MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 04:39:52 AM
@MH... you hope that it's clear to me.

It's perfectly clear to me. Is it clear to you?


Check the latest video, Electric OU: Supplement: Function Generator Positive and Negative Outputs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI)

If the results from the INSTEK are different, I'd like to see it. Consider the implications for the CVR current trace. I'm not sure if I grasp them totally yet.... but if the performance of the circuit can be derived from electrical parameters AT ALL.... well, see the last photo I posted.

And what happens when the Q1 switches on instead of the Q2 array is that the device can't carry as much current, so at the same gate drive settings you get less power to the load and more dissipated in the single mosfet. You can still have oscillations on this drain signal too, if you like, it's not a problem, even though that transistor might not have long leads, as in my case. There's no other major difference that I can see.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 25, 2012, 04:47:44 AM
You have amazing toys that go Boom!

Yes, you don't need to crunch DSO captures to show that there is no RAT magic.  "That old RAT magic la daa la daa...."

I am still contemplating this notion that the whole time the RAT team was looking at the wrong waveform for the current because the CSR was out of the main current loop.

Looking back at Poynt's diagram you can see the entire wire that includes the CSR, the Q1 source, and Q2 array gate inputs would all be super high impedance except for the tie to ground on one side.  So it's possible considering the high frequencies involved that they were picking up capacitive-inductively coupled junk the whole time.

Hmmmmmmm....

MileHigh

P.S.:
Quote
There's no other major difference that I can see.

You are forgetting that there is no longer a 50-ohm resistor in the loop, so with Q1 on you will likely dissipate more power in the inductive resistor assuming the single MOSFET can handle it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 25, 2012, 05:36:48 AM
TK:

I groked the function generator video.  It's a really nice function generator by the way.  It has that late-70s look to me, when they made "real stuff."   :)

Anyway, not sure if you will replicate all the way, but what the RAT team did of course was crunch the battery voltage times battery current calculation and got "COP infinity."  Of course the battery voltage measurements were suspect the whole time because of the cable lengths and Poynt showed Rosemay simulations of how varying inductance/wire length changed the power measurements but Rosie Posie refused to accept this.

I am still not sure about this potential issue I am raising about the fact that the CSR on the schematic is not actually showing the actual current in the circuit when the Q2 array is in defib.  I would not be surprised if I am missing something and am wrong and Poynt will correct me.

But, to go out on a limb, here is a thought experiment:

Rosie's setup now shows "COP infinity" when they crunch the DSO data dump. (Or the DSO crunches it directly, I can't remember.)  Let's assume the primary problem is the junk voltage data across the CSR and the battery voltage measurement is also an issue.

So, with the same setup, they instead use the function generator trick described a few posts back to get the correct current waveform.  They also follow Poynt's recommendations for proper probe positioning for measuring the battery voltage.  They then crunch the new DSO data and get under unity with the batteries discharging into the load.

Ya never know.....   Then the fat lady sings....

That old RAT magic had me in its spell....
That old RAT magic that they weaved so well...
Icy fingers up and down my spine....
The same old witchcraft no longer sublime...
 
 8) 8) 8)

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 05:56:51 AM
@MH: I know what they did with the spreadsheet data dumps... they "think" they generated an instantaneous power data set by having the spreadsheet multiply the voltage data by the current data (really the voltage drop across the CVR as registered by the scope... and using a value of "0.25 ohms" exactly for the value of the CVR. I would have expected a true value within 5 % of that, but exact.. from sand resistors... OK, fine, maybe they spent some time matching, never mind). So they did VxA at every timeslice of their sampling interval. Then presumably they again multiplied this by the length of the timeslices and added these up to get an approximate numerical integration of the power data-- for the energy flow.
Why oh WHY did they not simply use the scope's math functions to do this and display it in real time? Shall I tell you? First, because they don't understand how to do it or what it  means, and second... because it probably won't support their claims, if the raw data is measured right, that is.

A couple more videos are being processed right now: dependence of oscillations on load, aluminium heat sinks, RF emissions from the circuit.

 8)


ETA: How do you do any arithmetic operations on real numbers in a spread sheet and wind up with an "infinity" in your result? Think about it.....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 25, 2012, 06:12:02 AM
We had better take our compact reel-to-reel audio tapes now and do that hissy white smoke thing with them.

Cue that Mission Impossible Black Edition music....    8)

lol
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 06:28:55 AM
Wow.. .you do go waaaay back don't you. The best I can manage is some old cassettes. But the white smoke is no problem.....   :o


Anyhow, the first of two new ones is up now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMiXAgDWpbk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMiXAgDWpbk)


aaaannd.... Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3TMCYc3LNQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3TMCYc3LNQ)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 07:27:56 AM
Now here's what will likely happen next, when sleepyhead Rosemary wakes up and checks the forum. She will claim A) that her circuit NEVER produces ANY RF (without providing the least evidence that they have ruled out RF emissions) and that even if it DID it would be different than mine, and even if it was the SAME as mine.... er..... well, TK is as short as Hitler, so all his arguments are invalid anyway.

Who is it who is being silenced or suppressed? Certainly not Rosemary; I've asked her many questions (or rather the same small set of questions) that she declines to answer......  but she is actively trying to have me censored or banned.

They are just questions, Leon...er, Rosemary.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 25, 2012, 07:32:46 AM
Howdy members and guests,

At this point we are going nowhere fast with Rosemary's  unreliable, limited, inaccurate and unwilling to supply any answers for the countless questions from Poynt99, TK, MileHigh and myself, that's been ignored and swept under the carpet buried or to be buried as soon as possible in front of everyone's faces.

I feel we need to talk to the only documented known professional that has some working knowledge of all the Rosemary Ainslie devices from the Quantum 2002 with claims of COP>17 referenced in Rosemary's EIT paper "COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS" to the newest NERD RAT device(s) with claims of COP>INFINITY referenced in Rosemary's paper "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF A BREACH OF UNITY ON SWITCHED CIRCUIT APPARATUS", from what I've been told Donovan Martin at least has some type of engineering background whom is listed as a author in all the application papers wanting publishing by Rosemary which are listed below.

I do realize that Donovan Martin maybe busy, but it is the utmost importance that he help Rosemary explain all the questions now buried in this thread, and could easily be "BUMPED" back up front in one place to expedite the time process for answers. The fact is we all are busy and have other things to do ..... like make a living to have a place to eat and sleep, but this monumental COP>INFINITY ( COP greater than INFINITY ) claim mess far outweighs just being busy for a few minutes.



Fuzzy
 :)
______________________________________________________________________________________________


COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS     ( EIT PAPER )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin       02 February 2009
( EIT_paper.pdf )

OPEN SOURCE EVALUATION OF POWER TRANSIENTS GENERATED TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE COEFFICIENT OF RESISTIVE HEATING SYSTEMS
R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch        01 December 2009
( 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf )

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF A BREACH OF UNITY ON SWITCHED CIRCUIT APPARATUS
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron      06 August 2011
( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )

PROPOSED VARIATION TO FARADAY'S LINES OF FORCE TO INCLUDE A MAGNETIC DIPOLE IN IT'S STRUCTURE
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron      06 August 2011
( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 07:49:52 AM
Those poor kids. To have their names permanently associated with Rosemary Ains-lie's hand-waving conjectures. Well, I suppose that won't hurt their scientific careers much.... as long as they stick to cosmetology.

Is that Mr. Martin narrating her video? Or perhaps one of the other RATS members? Lying about the circuit being used, the battery voltage expected from the 5 12 volt batteries, the probe connections, the GREEN TRACE?

BTW... I wonder what's happened to the Counselor. Hey eatenbyagrue... have you been eaten by a crone, devoured by your inbox yet, deluged with PMs from Rosemary Ains-lie, trying to get you to commit to her defense, either legally or on this forum? Have you deigned to research and answer my two earlier questions to you? Are you keeping up with current events here .... or are you spending time with your family as you should be doing?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 08:23:27 AM
Countless questions? From Moi? Surely you jest. Come, let us count them together.

1. She has finally admitted that her calculations of the "25.6 MegaJoules" is incorrect, and she falsely apologised to me, which is worth nothing. What is worth everything is for her to CORRECT her figures, do the calcs correctly, post the correction and most importantly CORRECT THE CONCLUSION resulting from the false calcs. To do otherwise, when the calcs are KNOWN and ADMITTED to be wrong... is a lie.

2. She has claimed that "PER" NEVER indicates a division operation. This has been refuted by me and several others, with copious references, yet she insulted me because of it and has not corrected or retracted her stance nor of course apologised to me.

3. She has claimed that the GREEN TRACE on the Tek scopeshots in her video is NOT the common mosfet drains and has nothing to do with them. I have asked her then to explain just what it is and what it represents and how to interpret it. Is that three or just one question? I count one. She has also insulted me over that issue and has not apologised or corrected her absurdity.

4. She has denigrated my analysis -- or rather, simple explanation -- of her entire scopeshot, without providing any evidence, references or explanations. She has insulted my competence over this issue. I asked, in return for her to explain 4 or 5 items on the trace, clearly and unambiguously. I count that as one question, you may not.

5. She has compared me to Hitler, Mussolini, Savonarola, and the Devil himself, and has even called into question my vertical linear dimension. I have asked her to provide evidence and references for her assertions and claims; she has declined to do so. And yet, I've NEVER even once called her a silly old dried-up skinny titless ex-GILF with false teeth and a diaper... now have I.

6. She claims that several companies have vetted and endorsed her claims. I have asked her to produce ANY EVIDENCE that this has actually happened-- remembering her encounter with Powercat--- and she has failed to do so... for the several years I've been asking that one.

There are one or two other items I'd like her to clear up, but I can't be troubled to recall them right now, I've put in more than a full day's work here today.

Countless questions, or just a few that I keep asking over and over BECAUSE SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THEM about this open-source, public domain, help-me-to-replicate little project of hers?
Here's where I get to call her a hypocrite, on top of all the other things she is: a willfully ignorant, uneducated, overweeningly arrogant lying hypocrite... who thinks that reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters is equivalent to earning a university degree in physics.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 09:33:14 AM
Ahhh.... MH, remember this blast from the past, which you kindly linked on that other forum, exactly one year ago tomorrow?

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

It's deja vu all over again.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hoptoad on March 25, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
@hoptoad:

You have some experience in these matters. I ask you to look at the construction of Rosemary Ains-lie's circuit in the images from their video that FTC and I have posted. Do you see that all the "gang of four" mosfets have their gates, drains and sources hooked up with long clipleads and ALLIGATOR CLIPS clipped to those long threaded rods? What do you think is the likely result of this construction technique?
..snip...

Hmmmm... One of my bosses (years ago) used to have a saying : If your workspace is a birds nest, then expect some bird droppings.

Even if the circuit was operating in a very low frequency range, stray inductance and capacitive leakage introduced by messy wiring configurations can become an issue.

Not only for measurement purpose but also with regard to the actual operation of the base circuit. Within the rf range, the issues of stray inductance and capacitance throughout the entire circuit (including the measurement probes) becomes more pronounced. Neatness, and minimalism are your two best friends.

Cheers
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:05:29 PM
Guys I've had to play catchup.  I thought I'd do a synopsis from post 1511 - for easy reading - enjoy.

  1511 TK
.  Anxious to advise readers that he really is 72 inches long
.  Asks Rosemary to teach him the significance of the ‘green trace’
.  Again.
.  Asks her to believe that PER signifies ‘division’
.  When it actually represents a base unit of measurement
.  That can be used in any mathematical context required
.  Including addition, subtraction and multiplication
.  Urgent appeal to be ‘PROVED WRONG’
.  Recommends that readers equate him to Steven Hawking
.  Somehow?
.  Not sure that’s possible.
.  Steven Hawking is a genius
.  Demands to be taught about a ‘green trace’
.  Assures readers that he’ll keep asking this until he DIES
.  Or alternatively…
.  Actually he offers no alternatives.
.  Stefan has undertaken NOT to lock this thread.
 
1512  Poynty Point
.  Tries to get TK to focus on the topic
.  Gives him another free lesson in the art of circuit analysis.
.  Which has the dubious value of being marginally topical
.  But says little about TK’s assumed knowledge of this
.  From that declared ENGROSSED STUDY
.  Of everything related to Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:06:52 PM
  1513 TK
.  Asks about the 5th resistor
.  Refers to his previous work on OUR.com.
.  When he posted there as HUMBUGGER
.  Insists that the work was relevant
.  Tries to pin the anomalies on inductance from wires
.  Claims that the NERD team never measured the inductance on wires
.  Claims they don’t have the collective competence
.  Complains that Rosemary Ainslie has no WIT
.  Tells readers NOT to think that he’s Humbugger
.  But why would they?
.  Humbugger was NOT 72 inches long
.  Clearly NOT the same person
.  Humbugger assured us his (sorry) correction, he was – no longer than a pickle.
 
1514  POYNTY POINT
.  Poynty concurs
.  Sort of
.  Here and there
 
1515  TK
.  More evidence that he’s not up to scratch
.  Has NO idea which circuit to use
.  Reminds all and sundry that this is HIS work
.  And that everyone’s distracting him
.  Or thoughts of Rosemary Ainslie are distracting him
.  Or both.
.  Claims Rosemary Ainslie is misleading him
.  Confusing him
.  Or both
.  Deliberately or otherwise
.  Appeals to her to teach him
.  Please
.  Please, please.  Said many times
.  Complains that he has to drive 300 miles
.  For some obscure reason
.  Asks a question about a frequency
.  Then tells the readers that he already knows the answer
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:09:43 PM
  1516 TK
.  Mentions again that Rosemary Ainslie knows how tall he is
.  Suggests that she’s confused him with?
.  Not sure who. 
.  He seems to think she cares
.  Rosemary Ainslie knows exactly who he is
.  Which is Humbugger
.  Because they’ve got that ‘length’ thing in common
.  Which is considerably less than 72 inches Per pickle
.  Divisible or otherwise
.  LOL
 
1517 ROSEMARY AINLSIE
.  Tries to get the subject topical
.  Fails dismally
 
1518  ROSEMARY AINSLIE
.  Compares TK to Hitler
.  Savonarola
.  Mussolini
.  Tries to wrest back ownership of her thread
.  Fails dismally
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:10:45 PM
  1519  TK
.  Advises Rosemary Ainslie to listen to him
.  Is concerned that she’s money grabbing
.  And out to CON forum owners of their over unity prizes
.  Recommends that members, readers and Rosemary Ainslie study his work
.  When he posted as Humbugger
.  Shows his ineptitudes with understanding the imposed frequency from a switch
.  Compared to the self-resonating frequency of our oscillation
.  Insists that he has outperformed Rosemary Ainslie
.  Promises to prove this
.  In the same way that he can prove he’s 72 inches long
.  Golly
 
1520  ROSEMARY AINSLIE
.  Refers to cold fusion and nitinol technologies
.  Suggests that they have already outperformed any claims in these forums
. Tries to point to the topic at hand
.  Fails dismally
.  Concludes by stating that TK is NOT BIG
.  In any sense of the word
 
1521  ROSEMARY AINSLIE
.  States that TK’s intelligence is not as profound as Poynty’s
.  Or for that matter MileHigh’s
.  Or for that matter Steven Hawking’s
.  Or for that matter the collective value of every clay brick in our courtyard
.  Or she meant to
.  Per brick – which is here used as a ‘multiplier’
.  Whatever next?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:12:09 PM
  1522 MICROCONTROLLER
.  Recommends that Rosemary Ainslie put a sock in it
.  Claims that she’s a W H O R E
.  But did not define the acronym
.  Made a muddled reference to some circuitry that includes a capacitor
.  And assured the readers and members and Rosemary Ainslie
.  That he was onto something or the other FREAK
.  As he puts it
.  Golly
.  Clearly points to higher knowledge from lowly sources
 
1523  ROSEMARY AINSLIE
.  Suggests Microcontroller as a possible candidate for team troll
.  Fails dismally
 
1524 MICROCONTROLLER
.  Attempts to reach the outer limit of his invective
.  By calling Rosemary Ainslie ‘garbage’
.  Believes that this may be construed as an insult
.  And that it may be in keeping with the thread topic
.  Which is correct
.  Sadly
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:13:06 PM
  1525  TK
.  Overly concerned that the attention is taken from himself
.  Points out that his early work as ‘humbugger’ is the same as this new work
.  Which it is
.  But sadly as either Humbugger or TK – the work is still irrelevant
.  He has not duplicated the oscillation
.  In either attempt
.  He then fills the page with copious shots of his waveforms
.  In an effort to let our readers focus on his genius
.  As proof of something
.  I think
.  He makes no reference to WHAT he’s photographing
.  And omits PROOF of being 72 inches long
.  Which is more relevant than is work either Humbugger’ or as TK
.  The use of the term ‘work’ being loosely applied
.  And discussion of his length being much more arresting
.  As that level of exaggeration can only have been managed
.  BY ACCESSING FREE ENERGY
.  Whatever that means
 
1526  POWERCAT
.  Warns Rosemary Ainslie that he’ll tell the members and readers
.  That Rosemary Ainslie is the only one claiming that she’s got free energy
.  Which is confusing
.  Because Rosemary Ainslie does NOT claim that she’s got free energy
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:14:18 PM
  1527 MILEHIGH
.  Concerned that readers or members take cold fusion or nitinol claims seriously
.  Explains that they need to ‘chuckle’ about this
.  Like he does
.  Advises Rosemary Ainslie that there is no such thing as Free Energy
.   Which is somewhat redundant as Rosemary Ainslie concurs with this
.  And then promises to explain all
.  Specifically that a current CAN bypass the fg’s secondary winding
.  Which he’s promised to explain for some time now
.  Rosemary Ainslie is still waiting
.  As are the readers of this thread
.  Assuming there still are any
.  Which is doubtful
 
1528  TK
.  Claims Rosemary Ainslie cannot conduct a meaningful discussion
.  And pretends that he’s duplicated the NERD technology
.  Which he sees as a basis for discussion
.  DEMANDS that Rosemary Ainslie conduct tests
.  Detailed by team troll
.  Designed to disprove the NERD technology
.  Then offers to do this himself
.  Which is interesting
.  Rosemary Ainslie is MOST interested to see any meaningful test at all
.  For the record
.  LOL
.  Alternatively ‘Dear God’
.  Alternatively – ‘If only’
.  Something like that
.  He concludes that Harti can vouch for the fact that TK is NOT Hitler
.  Which is a comfort
.  Who would have thought?
.  Still no proof of his length is on offer
.  That 72 inches – courtesy free energy
.  LOL
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:15:35 PM
  1529 POYNTY POINT
.  Gives TK more guidance on his waveforms
.  Much needed
.  Despite TK’s self declared genius
.  LOL
.  Or better put
.  LOLOLOLOL
 
1530 TAK22
.  Tries to make sense of the thread
.  Fails dismally
.  Opts for assuming that it’s a farce
.  Probably on the money
 
1531  TK
.  Asks for more lessons from Poynty Point
.  Admits his equipment is substandard
.  Admits he has no clue what he’s doing
.  Asks for permission from Poytny to replace the fg with an optocoupler
.  Adds a sketch to lend gravitas to this new circuit variant
.  Asks Poynty to sim this first
.  Still no proof of that 72 inches claim
.  Can’t think why?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:16:31 PM
  1532 TK
.  Manages to fill one third of the page with waveforms
.  That have nothing to do with the NERD oscillations
.  Admits that he hasn’t got appropriate equipment
.  Hopes that everyone will not mind this too much
.  References the wrong number of batteries applied
.  To the wrong test
.  And hopes that no-one will notice
.  Again
.  Concludes that all oscillations are spurious
.  Which on the face of it means that there’s no further need to test anything
.  On top of which team NERD – never included a shunt analysis
.  Because they’re incompetent
.  Still nothing more about that unproven length
.  72 inches of it
.  Golly
 
1533 MILEHIGH
.  Makes a reckless departure into circuit analysis
.  The less said about it the better
.  Admits that it’s probably wrong
.  But it has the merit of filling the page
.  Concludes that TK is right
.  There’s nothing evident other than spurious oscillations
.  Which Rosemary Ainslie thinks she’s discovered
.  Although Rosemary Ainslie insists that she’s discovered nothing
.  But who cares?
.  When the truth can be as varied as these multiple circuit variants
.  LOL
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:17:22 PM
  1534 TK
.  Acknowledges that MileHigh agrees with him but draws a distinction
.  TK does NOT agree with that negative voltage
.  Claims that the scope trace won’t reflect something or the other
.  If the FG is ‘loaded down on it’
.  Which possibly means something to someone
.  Claims that all the MOSFET’s are turned on simultaneously
.  As shown in his or NERD’s video
.  He doesn’t specify which but suggests that this sounds convincing
.  As he’s just burned his fingers which constitutes proof
.  FFS
.  Then states that ONLY Q2’s are on and proof is also from the IR thermometer
.  Further proof is that Rosemary also proved this
.  Her function generator oscillations go ‘off’ - which is difficult to interpret
.  Concludes by appealing to readers and members to read that work…
.  The term work again rather loosely applied
.  That he did at over unity research.com where he posted as Humbugger
.  Who as we all know is NOT 72 inches long.
.  Or wasn’t a year ago
.  He declared that he was barely the length of a ‘pickle’
.  And asked to ‘please be given some more’
.  Like Oliver – in Dicken’s story about Oliver TWIST
.  LOL
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:18:22 PM
  1535 MILEHIGH
.  Lends his support to TK
.  Explains that the RAT team overlooked the actual Q-Array
.  Which both was missed by either TK as TK
.  or TK as Humbugger.  Which says little about either persona’s genius
.  Sadly
.  And everything about Poynty Point’s 
 
1536 TK
.  Suggests that MileHigh is way too charitable
.  Proof of an oversight is proof of incompetence
.  He’s replicated the circuit easily
.  Maybe not yet but wait and see.
.  His genius is such that if he will – soon
.  Just as he can prove his 72 inches
.  Tall
.  Which is where the term ‘tall story’ originates
 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:19:17 PM
  1537 MILEHIGH
.   Agrees with TK on everything
.   No matter what
.   And reminds readers and members that the fg outputs -5 volts
.   Which is likely to blow a 50 Ohm resistor
.   As he thinks there are two 100 Ohm resistors in parallel
.   Somewhere.  He doesn’t specify where
 
1538 TK
.  Asks permission from MileHigh to use an optocoupler
.  Because he proposed this earlier when he posted as Humbugger
.  Explains that it has the added merit of creating a spurious oscillation
.  That has no chance of recharging the batteries
.   Which makes it a desirable definitive debunk proof
.  Still makes no reference to his earlier request for more pickles
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:19:54 PM
  1539 TK
.  Asks for more guidance from MileHigh
.  Suggests that if he reverses probes he can make the -5 volts look like +5 volts
.  Speculates on this outcome for the balance of the post
.  Obviously prefers to apply that transposition
.  Possibly as definitive proof of a debunk
.  Which is to be used in his proposed replication
.  Which is proposed to PROVE that the NERD technology does not work
.  Which is interesting – if not exactly logical
.  Still nothing about those extra pickles
.  Sadly
 
1540 MILEHIGH
.  Points out that the sim doesn’t use a function generator
.  And the sim works just fine
.  Sort of – with applied innuendos
.  And caveats
.  Complains that the NERD waveform downloads gave him a headache
.  Insisted that it was ‘RATS’
.  Stated that the NERD CSR was incorrectly positioned
.  Thereby voiding any claims on any basis at all
.  Suggests that TK replace the CSR with a function generator
.  To produce an orgiastic waveform
.  That will ‘quiver’ in a ‘spastic feedback mode’
.  And that’s all the debunk requires
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:20:39 PM
  1541 TK
.  Asks for more explanations from MileHigh related to waveform analysis
.  Posts a picture of a little man with glasses to indicate that he, TK is, half blind
.  Which is fatuously self-evident
.  Promises that he does indeed have something ‘up his sleeve’
.  Or in his arsenal
.  Somewhere
.  Then confusingly he posts a picture of an element resistor
.  Which is, indeed, threatening
 
1542  MILEHIGH
.  Now satisfied that the function generator can be entirely replaced
.  Notwithstanding his earlier proposal to replace the CSR with this
.  Not happy with the use of the optocoupler
.  Nor is happy with the function generator
.  Wants to do nothing but apply a 50 Ohm resistor to enable current flow
.  Somehow
.  Suggests that TK simply apply a continuous positive voltage at the gate
.  And uses some extraordinary terms to explain this
.  But omits the picture of a little man wearing glasses
.  Which means that unlike TK he sees all this
.  Somehow
.  Then proposes that the LED’s of DOOM will definitely conduct continuously
.  Which is correct
.  Given a continuously applied signal at the gate of Q1
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:22:19 PM
  1543 TK
.   Assures MileHigh that he sees the point in this experiment
.   Advises MileHigh that he sees it even better than MileHigh
.   Refers to the applied negative signal from a function generator
.   Applies a square wave signal to some LED’s and surprisingly
.   Only one of those LED’s flashes
.   Which is STARTLING
.   Proposes that all that’s happening on the NERD circuit is this
.   Which results in more power to the MOSFET’s than to the load
.   Which may be relevant IF that was what the NERD circuit shows
.   Which it doesn’t.
 
1444 MILEHIGH
.   Sings a tune related to that ‘old black magic’
.   Fantasises about things that go ‘BOOM’
.   Convinces himself that the CSR was in the wrong loop
.   Posts the wrong schematic in support of this assumption
.   Allegation
.   Whatever
.   Concludes by humming to himself
 
1545 MILEHIGH
.  Wrestles with his conscience and admits that the counterclaim is COP infinity
.  Admits that he’s probably wrong about the position of the CSR
.  Goes ‘out on a limb’ and even states that CSR voltage is DEFINITELY wrong
.  Proposes that we apply Poynty’s proposal of a negative current discharge
.  Sings about that ‘old black magic’ but replaces Black with ‘rat’
.  Which has the dubious merit of being amusing
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:23:12 PM
  1546 TK
.  Tries to understand the applied analysis to each data dump
.  Complains that the NERD team never referenced the math function
.  Despite it being comprehensively demonstrated in the video
.  And despite his allegations of ‘closely’ recording the history of this technology
.  Unless his genius is actually just in not registering anything at all
.  While he records the progress of anything at all
.  Which on the face of it is possible
 
1547 MILEHIGH
.  Not an entirely comprehensible post
.  Some heavily obvious reference to MIB’s
.  Probably to pretend to some hope of importance
.  Which is sad
 
 
1548 TK
.  Just doing his usual self-promotion
.  Sadly ineffective
.  Still no proof of 72 inches
.  Good gracious
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:24:05 PM
  1549 TK
.  Speculates idly on Rosemary Ainslie’s possible answer
.  Assures the members and readers that he is not trying to get her banned
.  Makes some reference to ‘Leon…er’
.  Not sure what that means
 
1550 GLEN LETTENMAIER
.  Makes a garbled appeal to a collaborator to come in and ‘fight’
.  Takes half a page to do so
.  Language is not his strong point
.  LOL
 
1551 TK
.  Seems to think that he can do damage to anyone’s reputation
.  When in fact approval by him would constitute considerably more damage
.  He may possibly garner more credibility with proof of his ‘length’
.  Which he claims is 72 inches
.  Or the NERD technology
.  Or both
.  Asks eatenbyagrue to come in and argue
.  Or suggests that he’s turned tail
.  Because Rosemary Ainslie’s pestering him for legal advice
.  Still nothing more about his length
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:24:55 PM
  1552 TK
.  Ennumerates a series of questions
.  Which Rosemary Ainslie not only will not answer
.  But she’s not inclined to acknowledge
.  But it’s managed to fill yet more space
.  At least 72 inches of thread
.  Designed to discourage any readership at al
.  Lest anyone notice that he can’t prove that little length thingy
.  That’s calculated as 72 pickles PER every 6 feet.
.  Golly
 
1553 TK
.  Speaks to MileHigh because no-one’s answering him
.  Walks down memory lane
.  Still nothing more about that 'proof of length' thingy

AMENDED
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 01:35:07 PM
Can you believe it? She's REWRITING REALITY.

And now she thinks I'm humbugger.

ROSEMARY.... you are clearly clinically insane.... and yes, I am actually a psychologist.

There are so many falsehoods in your chain of posts, Rosemary, that anyone can go back and check... you are sick.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 01:37:53 PM
Can you believe it? She's REWRITING REALITY.

And now she thinks I'm humbugger.

ROSEMARY.... you are clearly clinically insane.... and yes, I am actually a psychologist.

There are so many falsehoods in your chain of posts, Rosemary, that anyone can go back and check... you are sick.

GOLLY.  And now we hear that he's not so much an experimentalist but a PSYCHOLOGIST.  No wonder his work here is somewhat faulty

regards TK
rosie pose
 :D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 01:45:24 PM


OK baby, you want to play "clutter up the thread with lies and irrelevancies...OK let's play.
Guys I've had to play catchup.  I thought I'd do a synopsis from post 1511 - for easy reading - enjoy.

  1511 TK
.  Anxious to advise readers that he really is 72 inches long
YOU brought up the issue of my height, which was a feeble attempt to identify me... and wrong.
Quote
.  Asks Rosemary to teach him the significance of the ‘green trace’
.  Again.
TEACH ME? NO, you lying bitch. I DEMAND that you EXPLAIN why YOU say it ISNOT the drain trace when it MANIFESTLY IS.
Quote
.  Asks her to believe that PER signifies ‘division’
.  When it actually represents a base unit of measurement
.  That can be used in any mathematical context required
.  Including addition, subtraction and multiplication
Look again, you stupid cow. You have been given references and formulae and so on to correct your misapprehension here but YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF LEARNING.
Quote
.  Urgent appeal to be ‘PROVED WRONG’
Urgent? That's right...PROVE ME WRONG, but you have not and cannot.
Quote
.  Recommends that readers equate him to Steven Hawking
.  Somehow?
.  Not sure that’s possible.
.  Steven Hawking is a genius
YOU LIE AGAIN. I have never "recommended" any such thing. When YOU started talking about my height, I ASKED "how tall is Steven Hawking, and what difference does it make".
Quote
.  Demands to be taught about a ‘green trace’
NOT "taught", Rosemary. YOU are the one lacking education and needing to be taught. YOU claimed the green trace is NOT the common mosfet drains, and I and everybody else says it IS, and I want you to EXPLAIN the discrepancy. This has nothing to do with "teaching" and YOU are not a teacher.
Quote
.  Assures readers that he’ll keep asking this until he DIES
.  Or alternatively…
.  Actually he offers no alternatives.
Actually, you LIE again. I did offer an alternative indeed: YOU RETRACT YOUR LIES AND STOP MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.
Quote
.  Stefan has undertaken NOT to lock this thread.
Stefan probably hasn't taken notice yet... unless you've been PMing him as is your pattern.
Quote

1512  Poynty Point
.  Tries to get TK to focus on the topic
.  Gives him another free lesson in the art of circuit analysis.
.  Which has the dubious value of being marginally topical
.  But says little about TK’s assumed knowledge of this
.  From that declared ENGROSSED STUDY
.  Of everything related to Rosemary Ainslie

Is that a fair characterization of .99's post? No, it is not. Does it even make sense as an English statement? No, it does not.

Shall I continue, so people can get even MORE distracted from the FACTS that I and others have uncovered about your little toy?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 01:54:16 PM
  1513 TK
.  Asks about the 5th resistor
WELL... there are 5 resistors aren't there? I didn't know this was a taboo topic.
Quote
.  Refers to his previous work on OUR.com.
.  When he posted there as HUMBUGGER
.  Insists that the work was relevant
I am not humbugger and this can be easily proven. cHeeseburger, remember? And Humbugger's work EXACTLY SIMULATING the circuit, or rather the circuit YOU CLAIMED AT THE TIME IN THE VIDEO to be using, was irrrelevant? On the contrary, it is the most relevant work that I've seen yet, other than my own, and indeed inspired me to try the sloppy layout that resulted in ME and EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS TRIED IT to be able to duplicate "your" oscillations AS I HAVE DEMONSTRATED.
Quote
.  Tries to pin the anomalies on inductance from wires
.  Claims that the NERD team never measured the inductance on wires
.  Claims they don’t have the collective competence
And that much is true and you and your "team" have demonstrated it over and over. Just look at the video. That is incompetency preserved for posterity and can't be denied by anyone who KNOWS what they are doing. I'd like to see what a Tek engineer would say about your abuse of his fine instrument. If he could speak through his tears and laughter that is.
Quote
.  Complains that Rosemary Ainslie has no WIT
.  Tells readers NOT to think that he’s Humbugger
.  But why would they?
.  Humbugger was NOT 72 inches long
.  Clearly NOT the same person
.  Humbugger assured us his (sorry) correction, he was – no longer than a pickle.
You lying idiot dolt. You aren't even making the little sense you usually manage.

Quote

1514  POYNTY POINT
.  Poynty concurs
.  Sort of
.  Here and there


 
1515  TK
.  More evidence that he’s not up to scratch
.  Has NO idea which circuit to use
So I'm testing them ALL... all  the ones you have claimed, at various times, to have used. Like the one published IN THE VIDEO which was a lie from the start.
Quote
.  Reminds all and sundry that this is HIS work
.  And that everyone’s distracting him
.  Or thoughts of Rosemary Ainslie are distracting him
.  Or both.
Liar.
Quote
.  Claims Rosemary Ainslie is misleading him
.  Confusing him
.  Or both
.  Deliberately or otherwise
  And you ARE misleading me and everyone else with your mistakes, your lies, your bullshit comments and your refusal to answer simple questions.
Quote
.  Appeals to her to teach him
.  Please
.  Please, please.  Said many times
YOU STUPID LYING CRONE. I have NEVER asked you to TEACH me anything.
Quote

.  Complains that he has to drive 300 miles
.  For some obscure reason
Where's your reference? I said I had to drive 200 miles, and it was NOT a complaint... it was an expression of how valuable my function generator is-- a far better unit than the cheapo INSTEK that she used.
Quote
.  Asks a question about a frequency
.  Then tells the readers that he already knows the answer

Do you know what a rhetorical question is, Rosemary? Never mind, I already know the answer, you ignorant stupid lying scrawny wench.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 01:57:56 PM
  1516 TK
.  Mentions again that Rosemary Ainslie knows how tall he is]
No, I didn't. Another lie.
Quote
.  Suggests that she’s confused him with?
.  Not sure who. 
.  He seems to think she cares
.  Rosemary Ainslie knows exactly who he is
.  Which is Humbugger
YOU IDIOT.
Quote
.  Because they’ve got that ‘length’ thing in common
.  Which is considerably less than 72 inches Per pickle
.  Divisible or otherwise
.  LOL
Are you drunk as well as stupid?
Quote

1517 ROSEMARY AINLSIE
.  Tries to get the subject topical
.  Fails dismally
But for my having to correct your LIES and ERRORS, we wouldn't be off topic. When you aren't here, we talk about testing and evaluating your circuit, you stupid lying cow.
Quote

1518  ROSEMARY AINSLIE
.  Compares TK to Hitler
.  Savonarola
.  Mussolini
.  Tries to wrest back ownership of her thread
.  Fails dismally
 

You got that right.... you are failing dismally, and your "ownership" of this thread is not at issue.

Shall we continue?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 02:14:52 PM
  1519  TK
.  Advises Rosemary Ainslie to listen to him
Did I? Are you doing so?
Quote
.  Is concerned that she’s money grabbing
.  And out to CON forum owners of their over unity prizes
Rosemary you are claiming a monetary prize based on unverified claims. Claims that I and everyone else who has studied them believe is incorrect, false, in error, mendacious, and bogus. You refuse to prove your claims.
Quote
.  Recommends that members, readers and Rosemary Ainslie study his work
.  When he posted as Humbugger
I AM NOT HUMBUGGER YOU STUPID COW and Stefan knows it. Ask HIM, in a PM, he'll tell you, you stupid cow.
Quote
.  Shows his ineptitudes with understanding the imposed frequency from a switch
.  Compared to the self-resonating frequency of our oscillation
.  Insists that he has outperformed Rosemary Ainslie
.  Promises to prove this
.  In the same way that he can prove he’s 72 inches long
.  Golly
What I said was that the TinselKoil WHEN MEASURED IN THE SAME MANNER AS ROSEMARY'S CIRCUIT HAS BEEN BY HER TEAM, it would appear to be much more massively overunity than her silly kludges, and if anyone doubts that I understand "frequency from a switch" I suggest they look at my TinselKoil videos. Golly. Properly SWITCHED mosfets can really do some great things with "frequencies". Too bad Rosemary doesn't get it.
Quote
1520  ROSEMARY AINSLIE
.  Refers to cold fusion and nitinol technologies
.  Suggests that they have already outperformed any claims in these forums
which is more bullshit... nothing has ever outperformed the CLAIMS in these forums
Quote
. Tries to point to the topic at hand
.  Fails dismally
.  Concludes by stating that TK is NOT BIG
.  In any sense of the word
In other words, when rational argument fails her she falls back on the old standard: ad hominem abuse and LIES.

Quote

1521  ROSEMARY AINSLIE
.  States that TK’s intelligence is not as profound as Poynty’s
.  Or for that matter MileHigh’s
.  Or for that matter Steven Hawking’s
.  Or for that matter the collective value of every clay brick in our courtyard
.  Or she meant to
.  Per brick – which is here used as a ‘multiplier’
.  Whatever next?

Funny. If your courtyard is ten meters by ten meters, and there are three hundred bricks, how many centimeters are covered PER brick? Please do this problem without using division.

You are an ignorant lying fool, Rosemary, and you don't even have the wit to drop a subject when you've been shown to be WRONG about it many times.

If a community garden has 5 acres, and there are three families, how much land PER family is available?  5 acres PER 3 families is 5/3 of an acre per family, you stupid ignorant fool. PER indicates a division operation. If you have a pot of tea that is 2 quarts, and there are 2 cups PER pint and 2 pints PER quart, how many cups of tea are in your pot? Idiot ignorant fool.

Shall we continue?


No. Screw you, Rosemary, and the horse you rode in on. You are a liar, and you need professional help.

IN NONE OF THE ABOVE RANTS AND USELESS POSTS FROM ROSEMARY has she addressed a single issue I've raised about her circuit.

And in none of the present entire discussion is there anything that wasn't already covered a year ago, without her constant nattering, on the OUR forum.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 02:18:14 PM
Her broomcloset unit, showing the single mosfet only, which then needed "repairs" which resulted in the addition of the "gang of four" MISWIRED mosfets in order to carry the current demanded by the 10 ohm heating element.

This instantiation, too, was alleged to demonstrate all of Ains-lie's claims. What of it now?

So we have the original Quantum circuit using a different arrangement, a "flyback diode" and a 555 timer.
Then we had several variants on that circuit using other 555 timer circuits and FGs. We went back and forth about whether or not an FG could even be used. First it had to be the 555, then a FG could be used, back and forth for a while. But let's just count this as 2 separate variants.
Then we have the single mosfet circuit shown in some diagrams and in the photo below.
Then we have the "5 in strict parallel" circuit diagram shown with narration in the video.
Then we have the actual circuit as wired that was in the video, with yet another circuit diagram.

All claimed to produce overunity behaviour. All tested at one time or another by multiple people with and without Rosemary's constant "cooperation" and discussion. All failed to produce overunity behaviour.

I guess Rosemary used up all the miracles in her own builds of at least 5 different overunity circuits, so the other builders couldn't have any.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 03:00:45 PM
Now, it's easy to predict where this is going. No matter how precisely I reproduce Rosemary's circuit, parts selection, physical layout, raw data and other phenomena, my circuit will NEVER be an exact enough replication to test Rosemary's claim. Why? Because it shows NO overunity behavior. Of course when the exact same analysis that she uses is applied to my build, it DOES do everything she claims. But it will (probably, got to keep an open mind so the wind can get in) fail the battery rundown test, THEREFORE it cannot be an exact replication of her circuit.
This is the way she has reasoned in the past and this is the way she will reason in the future. This farce will NEVER STOP --- unlike the TEK display she's posted, where the scope, I think, IS stopped --- until she can no longer type, or until the Men In Black finally succeed in blocking her computer access totally. She will continue to claim that since her circuit hasn't been DISPROVED, it is proved.

And since nobody has been able to show battery charging, nobody has tested a precise replication of her circuit, therefore it has not been disproved.

She's the Red Queen of crone trolls.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2012, 04:59:43 PM
Guys

It strikes me as extraordinary that TK now claims that he ever replicated our circuit.   

Here's the thing TK.  I absolutely do not want you to engage.  Your best experimental efforts are appallingly inadequate.  Your aptitudes for science are bereft.  And you're BIAS is so blatant that you're disqualified as an impartial assessor from the get go.  Not only that but your arguments are spurious, your evidence ridiculous, and your knowledge of what we're even talking about are all patently wanting.  Your manner of address is combative, rude, abusive and utterly untenable.  Your want of common decencies in stable discourse evidently lacking.  And you seem to frolick around with a level of invective that would be the envy of your average criminal sociopath.  And you seem to think this is warranted?  And then you have the temerity propose that you're also a trained psychologist and that you're qualified to comment on my own mental stability when your obsession with me and my work, like that of Glen Lettenmaier, points to a severe pathology that REALLY needs attention.

And all you're doing is cluttering this thread with a blow by blow account of your passage through a ponderous learning curve while you rather clumsily attempt to assemble the circuit.  And you thereby force the focus away from the required discussion related to our claim for that over unity prize.  Then - to add yet more insult to this intrusion - you try to pretend that you're not Humbugger or Cheese burger - or whatever it is that you called yourself - when it is PATENTLY obvious to the most unsuspecting of any of us - that you most assuredly ARE.  It's enough to make the toes curl.  You're dealing with a considerably more sophisticated readership than may have followed you in the past.  And you need to wise up.  Because your credibility is plummeting to depths that only you and probably Beelzebub occupy. 

What I want you to do is go away.  Start your own thread.  Do this in your own space.  You're impinging on mine.  I LOVE discussions with Poynty - because at least we're on the same page.  I LOVE MileHigh's contributions - as irrelevant as they are.  Yours - on the other hand - are entirely wanting in the finesse and entertainment AND relevance. And that's because you're a one dimensional thinker that has the added inconvenience of being somewhat slow of thought.  IF I'm to promote anything at all - and IF i'm to do so 'against the tide of popular opinion' - then let me at least do so with those members who can challenge me.  You don't.  You're just not up to par.  So.  Go away TK.  Go and start your own thread.  Do your own thing.  Just leave me alone.

And this little reference is significant.
This farce will NEVER STOP --- unlike the TEK display she's posted, where the scope, I think, IS stopped --- until she can no longer type, or until the Men In Black finally succeed in blocking her computer access totally. She will continue to claim that since her circuit hasn't been DISPROVED, it is proved.
I wondered who's been trying to crash in here.  If not you and Glen Lettenmaier and Harvey Gramm.  He's the only one who actually managed to do damage - courtesy an email from his wife.  And  I see you still trying to do your damnedest.  And I know full well that you're not MIB.  They'd need to employ competents.  You're not. You're just that commoner garden variety troll - who's trying to draw attention to some assumed nascent genius.  It doesn't take brains to take over a thread.  It takes nothing more than an overriding gross self interest and entire lack of sensitivity that is associated with a reasonable intelligence.  If I saw any kind of challenge in anything at all that you present I ASSURE you I'd be glad to engage.  As it is you're a clumsy self serving rather rude opportunist with no interest other than to dominate this thread with your badly argued denials - and your rather disgusting manners.

Just go away.  Please.  Start your own thread.  Call it what you like.  How to DEBUNK the NERD CLAIM.  Whatever.  Just let me get on with my work.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: The Boss on March 25, 2012, 05:41:30 PM
  It appears that the question of qualified comment with regard to your mental stability has already been addressed according to recent postings elsewhere.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 05:46:38 PM
What "work" is it that you need to continue? Justifying WITHOUT TESTING your silly circuit and your nonsensical data analysis? Don't let me stop you. There is clearly no need for you to "engage" me, yet you continue to do so by lying about me and misrepresenting my posts.

THERE IS NOTHING I WOULD LIKE MORE THAN TO SEE YOU TEST YOUR CIRCUIT IN PUBLIC IN AN UNAMBIGUOUS MANNER.

So get on with it. I am just about ready to test MY build of your circuit in such a way ... yet again. Do you really want us to swap roles, where YOU get to debunk ME? Good luck, may the better man win.

(Oh, by the way... did you know that Rosemary Ains-lie is really a MAN? This is absolutely true, just as true as her claim that I am humbugger.)

Is 60 degrees Celsius twice as hot as 30 degrees Celsius? I need to know, Rosemary, to calculate the COP of MY circuit. Please TEACH ME and explain your answer.


It's nice that Rosemary thinks that MY circuit, following her published diagram with all values identical or very close, is NOT her circuit. Since I'm using the IRF830a mosfets, she's clearly correct in that assertion-- for as long as I have THOSE mosfets installed. That means if I apply for the OU prize with MY circuit, she won't be able to contest it at all.

So to be clear, let's call my circuit the TAR BABY circuit.... at least until I get my IRFPG50s to replace my mosfets, which should be in a couple of days. (If I've waited fourteen days already, and there are seven days PER week, how many weeks have I waited? Show your work.)

Now.... the TAR BABY circuit can reproduce ALL measurements that Rosemary and her "team" have shown coming from her NERD circuit. I intend to package it up with three 11.1 volt Lithium Polymer batteries so that it will fit within the stated size parameters of this forum's OverUnity Prize.

Does that worry you at all, Rosemary? Remember, I did the same for MyLOW, and Sterling Allen acknowledged that I was the first to replicate Mylow's motor but then refused to give me his award because MY replication, even though it was exact and everybody agreed.... wasn't an overunity device. I am still LOLing over that one....

So you needn't worry.... because as long as there's traffic and you don't threaten Stefan directly with legal issues, he will let you dig your own rabbit hole and go more and more deeply psychotic, right out in public.

Now watch... Rosemary will start saying that I've "admitted" that my circuit isn't the same as hers. But she won't be able to say how, other than the mosfet part number, it is different.


Cue Rosemary, for another insane rant...... in which he will probably claim that he is a woman, after all.... a claim for which there is NO PROOF AT ALL. Anybody can post a video of a crone pointing a camera at a mirror and claim it's them.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on March 25, 2012, 05:50:19 PM
Countless questions? From Moi? Surely you jest. Come, let us count them together.

1. She has finally admitted that her calculations of the "25.6 MegaJoules" is incorrect, and she falsely apologised to me, which is worth nothing. What is worth everything is for her to CORRECT her figures, do the calcs correctly, post the correction and most importantly CORRECT THE CONCLUSION resulting from the false calcs. To do otherwise, when the calcs are KNOWN and ADMITTED to be wrong... is a lie.

2. She has claimed that "PER" NEVER indicates a division operation. This has been refuted by me and several others, with copious references, yet she insulted me because of it and has not corrected or retracted her stance nor of course apologised to me.

3. She has claimed that the GREEN TRACE on the Tek scopeshots in her video is NOT the common mosfet drains and has nothing to do with them. I have asked her then to explain just what it is and what it represents and how to interpret it. Is that three or just one question? I count one. She has also insulted me over that issue and has not apologised or corrected her absurdity.

4. She has denigrated my analysis -- or rather, simple explanation -- of her entire scopeshot, without providing any evidence, references or explanations. She has insulted my competence over this issue. I asked, in return for her to explain 4 or 5 items on the trace, clearly and unambiguously. I count that as one question, you may not.

5. She has compared me to Hitler, Mussolini, Savonarola, and the Devil himself, and has even called into question my vertical linear dimension. I have asked her to provide evidence and references for her assertions and claims; she has declined to do so. And yet, I've NEVER even once called her a silly old dried-up skinny titless ex-GILF with false teeth and a diaper... now have I.

6. She claims that several companies have vetted and endorsed her claims. I have asked her to produce ANY EVIDENCE that this has actually happened-- remembering her encounter with Powercat--- and she has failed to do so... for the several years I've been asking that one.

There are one or two other items I'd like her to clear up, but I can't be troubled to recall them right now, I've put in more than a full day's work here today.

Countless questions, or just a few that I keep asking over and over BECAUSE SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THEM about this open-source, public domain, help-me-to-replicate little project of hers?
Here's where I get to call her a hypocrite, on top of all the other things she is: a willfully ignorant, uneducated, overweeningly arrogant lying hypocrite... who thinks that reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters is equivalent to earning a university degree in physics.

TK
Well done on the new videos,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality, That her circuit does not work as she claims.

With all these questions that she repeatedly fails to answer it begs the question why is she on this forum ? she already has a blog, not engaging with members questions is only going to results in them being asked again and again.
 
she keeps referring to (guys) all the time as if they are supportive of her, doesn't sound like these guys are the ones posting here, I wonder who they are ?
 
 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 06:41:10 PM
Hey, AINS-LIE, how's this for a rabid debunker's offer:

I will allow STEFAN HARTMANN himself, or anybody that he designates as an impartial judge with the necessary knowledge skill and kit, to test MY TAR BABY circuit , with IRFPG50s as well as IRF830as, SIDE BY SIDE with your apparatus, for comparison purposes. I will even pay the shipping for your device, as well as mine, to the designated test location. I, and YOU, will have nothing to say or do with regards to the comparison. And I don't need two "academics" to agree with me. I will accept the result of a SIDE BY SIDE TEST using the same protocols, instruments, and analyses on both our devices, by anybody who can read an oscilloscope trace quantitatively. I don't even care what the protocols are, exactly, as long as they are fairly applied to BOTH of our devices at the same time, side-by-side, and that they have the capability of potentially FALSIFYING your claims and mine -- as any scientific experiment should.

If YOUR Ains-lie NERD device... the exact one sitting in the video demonstration, or a duplicate your team builds --- IF it produces a genuine OVERUNITY result... and MY Tar Baby device does NOT, in side-by-side testing of the tester's choice........ then I will acknowledge your superiority and apologise profusely, and my credibility will be shattered forever. 

IF... however, they BOTH produce an OVERUNITY RESULT.... then I will claim the prize, since my device will fit the parameters of size and weight and YOURS DOES NOT, and since I instigated the testing and you have shown nothing so far. And YOU will reimburse me immediately for my expenses regarding the shipping and etc pertaining to the impartial test.

And if neither yours nor mine is overunity.... you can then continue on to another forum and waste the time of some other honest researchers trying to verify your claims. And again, you will reimburse me immediately, as above, since YOUR device hasn't met its claimed performance -- and since my claim is only that my device behaves the same as yours..... then once again, I am correct and you are not.

And if MY device somehow DOES produce OU in the side-by-side test and yours does NOT.... then you will accuse the tester of being in my pay or thrall somehow. And you will weasel out, claiming it wasn't a fair test after all.

And I will laugh myself silly, once again.


(ETA: I note that he (Ains-lie) has not refuted my assertion that he is really a MAN. Therefore I can conclude that I am proven right on this point. AINS-LIE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE IS A MAN!! You saw it first right here.)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 06:52:00 PM
TK
Well done on the new videos,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality, That her circuit does not work as she claims.
Thank you. I agree with you, there is no way that any circuit test I perform would have any validity in her eyes. That is why I suggested an independent SIDE BY SIDE comparison of our circuits. Of course she will never agree , but if she does, I am quite prepared to go through with my offer.
Quote
With all these questions that she repeatedly fails to answer it begs the question why is she on this forum ? she already has a blog, not engaging with members questions is only going to results in them being asked again and again.
She's here because she does have several "supporters" here. WilbyInebriated is her pet troll, and has been critical of a single minor point long superseded in my earlier testing of the COP>17 claim. He's stayed out of this thread, though... maybe he's blocked somehow. And of course the newcomers side with her for a while, until they "DO THE MATH" (tm Rosemary Ains-lie) and discover for themselves that they've stumbled into the psychotic ravings of the certified lunatic Rosemary Ains-lie.
She's (or rather HE's) not answering the questions because HE (Ains-lie) knows that he'd have to admit defeat on each of those minor points. I am stll LOLing over the GREEN TRACE on his scopeshots which he claims is NOT the common mosfet drains, when anybody with functioning eyeballs can see that it is.

And nobody bothers to respond to his silly blog full of nonsense and slander, so to get any kind of rise, like the troll he is, he has to post where there is some dialog happening.
Quote
she keeps referring to (guys) all the time as if they are supportive of her, doesn't sound like these guys are the ones posting here, I wonder who they are ?

Nobody. Ains-lie has no support from anybody with any credibility.

NOW... I really wish he would get along and agree with .99 on a test protocol for HIS (Ains-lie's) circuit and start testing. I'm getting tired of his page after page of personal attacks against me and the other people here while avoiding the real issues.

(What? Ainslie is NOT a man? But I'm Humbugger, and shorter than HITLER?     WHAAAT?)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 25, 2012, 07:06:50 PM

Howdy members and guests,

At this point we are going nowhere fast with Rosemary's  unreliable, limited, inaccurate and unwilling to supply any answers for the countless questions from Poynt99, TK, MileHigh and myself, that's been ignored and swept under the carpet buried or to be buried as soon as possible in front of everyone's faces.

I feel we need to talk to the only documented known professional that has some working knowledge of all the Rosemary Ainslie devices from the Quantum 2002 with claims of COP>17 referenced in Rosemary's EIT paper "COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS" to the newest NERD RAT device(s) with claims of COP>INFINITY referenced in Rosemary's paper "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF A BREACH OF UNITY ON SWITCHED CIRCUIT APPARATUS", from what I've been told Donovan Martin at least has some type of engineering background whom is listed as a author in all the application papers wanting publishing by Rosemary which are listed below.

I do realize that Donovan Martin maybe busy, but it is the utmost importance that he help Rosemary explain all the questions now buried in this thread, and could easily be "BUMPED" back up front in one place to expedite the time process for answers. The fact is we all are busy and have other things to do ..... like make a living to have a place to eat and sleep, but this monumental COP>INFINITY ( COP greater than INFINITY ) claim mess far outweighs just being busy for a few minutes.



Fuzzy
 :)
______________________________________________________________________________________________


COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS     ( EIT PAPER )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin       02 February 2009
( EIT_paper.pdf )

OPEN SOURCE EVALUATION OF POWER TRANSIENTS GENERATED TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE COEFFICIENT OF RESISTIVE HEATING SYSTEMS
R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch        01 December 2009
( 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf )

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF A BREACH OF UNITY ON SWITCHED CIRCUIT APPARATUS
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron      06 August 2011
( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )

PROPOSED VARIATION TO FARADAY'S LINES OF FORCE TO INCLUDE A MAGNETIC DIPOLE IN IT'S STRUCTURE
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron      06 August 2011
( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 07:18:39 PM
Thanks, FTC, for posting that reminder. Do you have any idea who that is talking in the video? I mean the one standing there gesturing at the apparatus and then at the diagram, and who is describing the labelled points on her board, and who is telling us that the GREEN trace is the common drain trace? I'd like to ask him why he's lying to us, with Rosemary standing right behind him not correcting him. Is that Donovan himself? Or is that another one of her sterling hand-picked Team?

Here is another interesting document from Agilent. Of course, they don't know what they are talking about since Rosemary has proven THEM wrong too. And who ever heard of Agilent anyway. Bunch of pikers, they know nothing of the mighty Zipon, nor do they understand anything about the superlative INSTEK function generator.

Oh....and of course, in the second document below, we see a circuit consisting of 5 _ACTUALLY_  paralleled IRFPG50 mosfets and an analysis of their behavior in a circuit eerily similar to that claimed by Ains-lie to be her own "work". Of course... this one has the dreaded gate and source resistors, and so could NEVER be overunity in any way....  but note the common drains, the paralleled gates, and the other features of the circuit.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on March 25, 2012, 07:44:10 PM
TK:

It's a coincidence because I linked to the same Agilent measurement application note about adding DC offsets to a function generator's output to prove to Rosemaery that current can actually pass through a function generator.

Rosemary:

Now of course you conceded a while back that current can pass through the function generator.  We are still stuck on the issue of you claiming that the resistance in that path is 1050 ohms, and not the actual resistance which is 50 ohms.

I am going to have to insist that you explain yourself completely.  Recently you said, "Specifically that a current CAN bypass the fg’s secondary winding" implying that I am omitting this.  Presumably this is 1000 ohms.  Now what in God's name are you talking about?  You need to clearly and definitively explain what you mean because I don't know and Poynt doesn't know.

I have attached the image of the output stage of your signal generator compliments of Poynt.  WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

When you concede that you are wrong I am asking you to post admitting that you were wrong and then we can move forward.  If you refuse to do this then you are back dealing with issues of moral bankruptcy.

For what it's worth, a month ago you clearly couldn't even understand the concept of "current flowing through the function generator."  You are learning and you have to demonstrate that you have the moral fiber to admit that you are learning.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 07:47:20 PM
@MileHigh:

I'm kind of short on capacitors, but I dug up 4 ea. 10 000 microFarad, 80 WV electrolytics that I could put in parallel without too much wire length. Do you think that's enough capacity to perform your test, using my Tar Baby and my 12 V, 5 A-H batteries?

I note that your method uses a nice safe way to "precharge" and insert the cap into the battery pack. Someone who didn't know better might try to hook a big cap up directly to a big battery pack.... and that would be fun to watch.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on March 25, 2012, 07:50:35 PM
I think this thread is going nowhere until Rosemary will do some new measurements without
the function generator and post new measurements results and a video showing
her new setup with the 555 timer...


So as I am getting too many private complains about her spamming now this thread,
I am closing this thread now.

Rosemary, when you will have a new experiment with the 555 timer , the battery tests and a new
video and measurement results , just contact me privately and then I can
open up the thread again. Until then , just work on your setup and make new videos
and document it only with the 555 timer and forget the function generator whiich puts energy
into the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 02, 2012, 11:58:53 PM
Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I am not opening this thread again because of the legal threat I received of
her lawyer, but maybe there will be coming some new evidence from these tests.

As I don´t like to be threaten by legal action I might pull the plug again, if this
thread goes nowhere again and close it again and make a backup as PDF and
post it in the Download archive and remove it from the forum completely.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 03, 2012, 10:11:23 AM
My dear hartiberlin

Many thanks indeed for giving me access to this thread, which carries the fruits of the hard work applied to this research both by myself and my collaborators.  Unfortunately it still hold copious evidence of a level of traducement and slander that, at its least, is libelous.  As progress of this technology to proof - under any conditions at all - also relies on the engagement of academics and professionals, and since this thread is the base reference - then, unfortunately, it is unlikely that any of our revered and esteemed are likely to engage.  This because professionals, as a rule, do not like their names to be associated with such gross and unprofessional lack of constraint in any context at all.  Therefore, unless those offending posts are deleted or transferred to an alternate thread - then you have done nothing at all to enable the progress of this to any reasonable discussion, or even to proof of experimental evidence that I was hoping to manage.

I would add that the history of my contributions to this and, indeed, all threads in all forums where I have engaged, have been dogged by that same level of intervention and conducted, more often than not, by precisely those same individuals, under varying Internet personas and with a liberality of abuse that not only defies any reasonable forum guidelines, but that is indeed criminally abusive.  Therefore, should I continue to post here and should I not be given moderation rights - then I will have no 'on going' protection from precisely that attack.  In which case history will simply repeat itself - and I may yet again find that our technology is argued on the basis of allegation and opinion instead of in the cold light of reason and good argument which is required by science.

Then too my initial engagement on your forum was never stipulated or contracted on 'special' conditions outside forum guidelines. On the basis on nothing more demanding that those 'forum guidelines' and your own invitation to engage - I accepted your offer to re-engage here - both on the penultimate occasion when this thread was locked and on at least 3 previous occasions.  But my engagement on your last invitation was accepted on the basis of trust in your desire to explore the further proof of our experimental evidence - and the implicit understanding that you would not lock my threads.  Frankly I did not anticipate that you would also couple this allowance with the open invitation to MileHigh, tinselkoala, powercat, and Glen Lettenmaier (aka fuzzytomcat) to appropriate ownership of my thread to comment with that liberality to which I referred.  As mentioned - this has put this thread address outside the range of any acceptable reference which makes it impossible to progress this to the proof required - associated as it is with academic comment.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that in order to salvage this technology from the slurs that have been imposed on it by this wanton engagement of some of your members I would need to have the right to monitor my own thread or that you would need to appoint an impartial monitor from amongst your members.  I am reasonably satisfied that wilby's impartiality to the test results would qualify as such but am not at all sure that he's prepared to engage.  Alternatively, perhaps eatenbyagrue... or someone.  I'm sure we can both agree on some choice and that there may be this impartial moderator who may have the time and the interest to deal with this.

And coupled with this active moderation would be the requirement to remove a great many posts that slander my good name, diminish the technology and indeed relate to matters that are entirely extraneous to this topic or written in defense of that calumny.  This just to ensure that this thread address does not remain the embarrassment that is its present state.  If you are reluctant to delete those offending posts may I propose that they are removed to an alternate thread address.  I'm sure that you would then be able to retain the income that you enjoy related to your advertisements that are included in our threads. 

Then indeed we can revert to that early intention which is progress this claim even beyond any claims made thus far - which is to explore the efficacy of this technology related to battery draw down tests.  And we can then all address the anomalies that are related to the claims in our paper.  I personally, and the collaborators collectively, feel that this may merit some considerable interest as it is also very much in the interest of wider public and thereby deemed to be in the good of the public.  Certainly thorough evaluation of the evidence would be required lest the public be misled.  And equally, the evaluations that are then exposed through discussion and experimental evidence would need some protection lest the benefits to the public be denied.  And when these matters are finalised - then I would strongly propose that the thread is locked.  But only then.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 03, 2012, 11:23:04 AM
My dear hartiberlin

Many thanks indeed for giving me access to this thread, which carries the fruits of the hard work applied to this research both by myself and my collaborators.  Unfortunately it still hold copious evidence of a level of traducement and slander that, at its least, is libelous.  As progress of this technology to proof - under any conditions at all - also relies on the engagement of academics and professionals, and since this thread is the base reference - then, unfortunately, it is unlikely that any of our revered and esteemed are likely to engage.  This because professionals, as a rule, do not like their names to be associated with such gross and unprofessional lack of constraint in any context at all.  Therefore, unless those offending posts are deleted or transferred to an alternate thread - then you have done nothing at all to enable the progress of this to any reasonable discussion, or even to proof of experimental evidence that I was hoping to manage.

I would add that the history of my contributions to this and, indeed, all threads in all forums where I have engaged, have been dogged by that same level of intervention and conducted, more often than not, by precisely those same individuals, under varying Internet personas and with a liberality of abuse that not only defies any reasonable forum guidelines, but that is indeed criminally abusive.  Therefore, should I continue to post here and should I not be given moderation rights - then I will have no 'on going' protection from precisely that attack.  In which case history will simply repeat itself - and I may yet again find that our technology is argued on the basis of allegation and opinion instead of in the cold light of reason and good argument which is required by science.

Then too my initial engagement on your forum was never stipulated or contracted on 'special' conditions outside forum guidelines. On the basis on nothing more demanding that those 'forum guidelines' and your own invitation to engage - I accepted your offer to re-engage here - both on the penultimate occasion when this thread was locked and on at least 3 previous occasions.  But my engagement on your last invitation was accepted on the basis of trust in your desire to explore the further proof of our experimental evidence - and the implicit understanding that you would not lock my threads.  Frankly I did not anticipate that you would also couple this allowance with the open invitation to MileHigh, tinselkoala, powercat, and Glen Lettenmaier (aka fuzzytomcat) to appropriate ownership of my thread to comment with that liberality to which I referred.  As mentioned - this has put this thread address outside the range of any acceptable reference which makes it impossible to progress this to the proof required - associated as it is with academic comment.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that in order to salvage this technology from the slurs that have been imposed on it by this wanton engagement of some of your members I would need to have the right to monitor my own thread or that you would need to appoint an impartial monitor from amongst your members.  I am reasonably satisfied that wilby's impartiality to the test results would qualify as such but am not at all sure that he's prepared to engage.  Alternatively, perhaps eatenbyagrue... or someone.  I'm sure we can both agree on some choice and that there may be this impartial moderator who may have the time and the interest to deal with this.

And coupled with this active moderation would be the requirement to remove a great many posts that slander my good name, diminish the technology and indeed relate to matters that are entirely extraneous to this topic or written in defense of that calumny.  This just to ensure that this thread address does not remain the embarrassment that is its present state.  If you are reluctant to delete those offending posts may I propose that they are removed to an alternate thread address.  I'm sure that you would then be able to retain the income that you enjoy related to your advertisements that are included in our threads. 

Then indeed we can revert to that early intention which is progress this claim even beyond any claims made thus far - which is to explore the efficacy of this technology related to battery draw down tests.  And we can then all address the anomalies that are related to the claims in our paper.  I personally, and the collaborators collectively, feel that this may merit some considerable interest as it is also very much in the interest of wider public and thereby deemed to be in the good of the public.  Certainly thorough evaluation of the evidence would be required lest the public be misled.  And equally, the evaluations that are then exposed through discussion and experimental evidence would need some protection lest the benefits to the public be denied.  And when these matters are finalised - then I would strongly propose that the thread is locked.  But only then.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

This isn't a battery draw down test I see that you posted, just more of the same bloviating on your merit of the collaborators that are all in hiding and refuse to back a single statement of yours even your claim of COP>INFINITY.

It be better Rosemary to get the known professional of the lot of your NERD RAT team, that being Donovan Martin as you Rosemary Ainslie have lost all credibility in your ability to discuss electronic circuitry, testing or evaluation of the data you have provide as a method of or to your claim of COP>INFINITY ..... COP greater than INFINITY. Where are all these people you always say are behind your findings .... dead or on some remote island ??

You Rosemary have even refused a offer of mine to show your COP>INFINITY device LIVE on my streaming broadcast web site, that says volumes in itself to me and the countless others .... so that offer is gone for you.  ???

I'm sure Poynt99 will not touch your battery draw down test with a ten foot pole now that there is still problems shown in your YouTube video like what schematic for the device shown was used in the video, plus how in the hell to verify anything you do Rosemary being you fail to document everything that may negate your "THESIS" through a proper scientific experiment, like to the one just done by TK that your running and hiding from the results.

From what I've heard directly you didn't even verify that Poynt99 was still interested or even willing to do "ANY" testing with you again, does Stefan know that ??  :o

I'm going to do anything and everything I can to contact Donovan Martin to verify his collaboration with you, his 100% agreement on the findings of a COP>INFINITY in documents you sent to some accredited journals or magazines for possible publication and answers to the questions posted in this thread you refuse to answer concerning the schematics, video, scope shots, test data.

FTC
 :P

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 02:21:43 PM
Where's the test?

I thought this thread was opened to discuss the test that RA is going to perform.

Where is this test? Where is the discussion of the test?

I have shown exactly how such a test can be performed, in a short amount of time, in an unequivocal manner. No "academics" or other professionals, no instrument readings or interpretations need be performed. Show the NERD RAT device heating a load to 190 C as in the video, for 48 hours, then do the Dim Bulb test. Use the Function Generator, I don't care.

Just DO THE TEST.

Or perhaps... ROSEMARY AINSLIE is trying to suppress dialog and testing of a FREE ENERGY DEVICE. She certainly is trying to suppress ME.




AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY OF ROSEMARY AINSLIE:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please review the following video, as it contains the heart of the Ainslie matter. Ainslie has given this video and the demonstration contained therein as evidence that her device qualifies for a monetary award. There are some things that you should understand about this video. I ask you to have Ainslie herself explain certain matters in the video to you...then have an electronics professional or electrical engineer explain the same points to you.

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

It is my position that this video of Ainslie's makes substantial misrepresentations as to the performance of her device. Since she is applying for a monetary prize, these misrepresentations need to be addressed. It is my hope that you, as her attorney, will familiarize yourself with the complete issues, including her abusive postings on internet sites, her continual mistakes and errors of fact, her refusal to perform comprehensive testing of her device, and her attempts to gain a monetary award based on her unsubstantiated claims.

Please ask Ainsile if the circuit diagram shown in the video is ACTUALLY the circuit which is demonstrated, or a different one.

Please ask Ainslie if the no-load voltage on a fully charged 12-volt battery is expected to be "12 volts" ... or a higher number. Note that the presenter uses the "12 volt" figure as evidence that the batteries are still fully charged--- when it is no such thing.

Please ask Ainslie why one battery was removed from the set of six before the second part of the demo. This has never been explained. I believe I know why, and I will explain and even demonstrate why if necessary (although it will likely result in damage to a component.)

Please ask Ainslie if there was any substantial current flowing in the second part of the demo where a load is heated to nearly 200 degrees C, and if so, whether this current flows during the Oscillations, or during the NON-oscillating portion of the waveform. (Ainslie has claimed repeatedly that the heat in the load cannot be accounted for by the current from the battery and that the batteries recharge and do not deplete during the operation of her circuit. )

Please ask Ainslie to explain the "five or six Watts" figure that the presenter cites at one point, gesturing to an oscilloscope display which shows no such reading.

And further, please get an electronics professional to help you evaluate the oscilloscope displays presented in that video. I have done comprehensive evaluations, but I ask that you get your own, independent, reliable evaluations. Mine can be used as a guide if you like, and your own consultants can confirm or falsify my several points of notice on their own, and explain to you just what these oscilloscope displays indicate.

I protect my identity on the Internet because of threats to myself and those close to me, some of them made by Ainslie herself. If you, Ainslie's attorney of record, would like to know my contact information this can be arranged. However, I fear for my safety and security should Ainslie get hold of this information, therefore I will need some signed paper from you, her attorney of record, stating that my personal information will remain confidential and most especially will not fall into her hands. She has threatened me!

Attached below are screen grabs of oscilloscope displays from the Ainslie video. Each point that I have indicated with a number is a salient point of data that should be described and understood by anyone attempting to evaluate Ainslie's various claims. I am not including my own comments on these points..... they are easily found, though. Anyone who is skilled in the art of oscilloscope usage can look at these points and explain/interpret them for themselves. Note that Ainslie herself has been asked about some of these points and has declined to explain or interpret them.

Sincerely,
the internet poster known here as TinselKoala

As I said, if this attorney needs to know who I am in real life, I will gladly reveal it, under strict non-disclosure agreement, in correspondence between Ainslie's attorney and mine.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
Meanwhile.... allow me to point out that a certain device, the Tar Baby, IS being tested, as we speak, in many different ways, and all the testing is documented on cameras and posted to the internet, on this forum, YouTube, and elsewhere. All the testing being done on Tar Baby is applicable to NERD....

The Tar Baby is identical to the NERD RAT device in almost every way, notable exceptions being the white pegboard, the clipleads, and the erroneous markings on the pegboard that the NERD device has. Tar Baby does not have white pegboard, clipleads, or erroneous and misleading markings--- therefore it is NOT a replication of the NERD device.   

Or is it? Does the battery charging effect claimed by the NERDs depend on white pegboard? Clipleads?  I do have some pegboard and white paint on hand, and I'm sure I can find some clipleads around here somewhere, if Wilby insists.

Tar Baby uses the same circuit diagram that has been agreed upon as was used by the device shown in the NERD demo video. It uses the same components and component values (except for its lower capacity batteries). It is driven by a function generator in the same 2 manners that the NERDs show in the demonstration video and it produces the same oscillations and the same oscilloscope displays and readings. It heats a load strongly in the second mode and weakly in the first mode, just as the NERD device does. It has been subjected to many tests that others have come up with and suggested for the NERD device, many that I myself have thought of, and it has even been subjected to the Dim Bulb test. Time-temperature profiles comparing Tar Baby's efficiency as a heater  with a straight DC supply at the same INPUT power levels have been performed (although not yet posted) which show Tar Baby is inefficient and wastes power heating the mosfets. In addition, the Dim Bulb test showed that Tar Baby is not recharging its batteries enough to offset the current drain imposed by the load and the mosfets themselves. Which might seem strange... since it does EVERYTHING ELSE that NERD has actually been shown to do.
(ETA: Even the SOURCE of the oscillations has been tracked down, first in the simulations of the NERD device by .99, humbugger, and others, then in the excellent verbal analyses by MileHigh and .99, and finally by me, experimentally and documented on YT using the Tar Baby device.)

All of this building and testing was performed by me, working alone but with advice and comments and discussion from interested posters and friends, in the two or three weeks previous to this post.

So... I ask again.... WHERE IS THE CORRESPONDING TESTING showing that Ainslie's claims are correct with respect to HER device... but somehow aren't when applied to Tar Baby. I have even offered Tar Baby herself, for side-by-side testing against NERD, with analysis to be performed by the same methods for each. (And of course, BOTH WAYS, her analysis methods and mine).

WHERE IS THE NERD TESTING?

OK... I'll withdraw now and get back to work, testing and explaining the Tar Baby, and looking hopefully for some kind of a real test from Ainslie. But I'm not going to be holding my breath....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on April 03, 2012, 06:04:04 PM
Guys, I think I have a solution which will satisfy everyone.  I do not know that much about the laws of physics as they apply to electricity.  I know a little about weight and linear motion equations, but here I have to say I am out of my element.  But I do know about the law in general, so I think we can just come to some compromise.


I think Rosemary just needs to lay out her laws of physics as they need to apply to her device in order to achieve overunity.  So like with that quibble you guys had over the heat calculations, Rosemary should just lay out her givens here.  If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.  You guys can come up with your own formulas and make your underunity devices, but Rosemary's formula gives her overunity, so I think she deserves recognition for this.


Rosemary, if I had an overunity prize to give, I would give it to you.  Also, I do not really think it matters whether Rosemary's laws of physics match up exactly with our understanding of them, because laws change all the time, and her interpretation may very well be valid.


Maybe you guys are just reluctant to hand out your overunity prizes because you only have one of them, and you are not yet ready to part with them.  So how about we create a new overunity prize category?  Something like the Free Energy World First, something like that.  We just make a website, award Rosemary the prize for the device she has poured her life work around, and she can maybe preface it with the laws of physics as she sees them and how the device creates energy under those laws, and I think everyone will be happy, no?  Probably no monetary award, but at least she will get the recognition she deserves.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on April 03, 2012, 06:48:12 PM
@eatenbyagrue
 Have you actually seen the terms and conditions for the OU prize ????
 If you have problems with pdf Please see the second post.
 http://www.overunity.com/5707/overunity-prize-conditions-for-1-watt-device-pdf-file-attached/
 
 We are not looking for a fantasy device we need a real device that works and that can be developed to run a home or car.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 03, 2012, 07:24:02 PM
Eatenbyagrue:

Quote
If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.

Your statement above is simply ridiculous, right out of the Bizarro Universe.  We are here.  Standard units and measurements will work here, and on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.  They can't be changed.

Going back to Rosemary's setup, one of the key things that was learned and is very important and worth repeating again is the following:

1.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode the battery current that is powering the device flows through the function generator, it does not flow through the current sensing resistor.
2.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode what actually flows through the current sensing resistor is an AC-coupled signal that comes from an oscillator that is running in the Q2 MOSFET array.
3.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode the voltage measured across the battery has a huge AC waveform superimposed on top of the actual DC voltage.  This AC waveform is not to related to the DC output from the battery bank which is the true voltage that is powering the circuit.

If you accept points 1, 2, and 3 above as being true, then it means that all of the DSO waveform analysis done by Rosemary and the NERD team is invalid because they were looking at junk data.

If Rosemary completely ignores this posting then my opinion is that she is in denial, and everything that she does to try to advance her proposition will be an exercise in futility.

There are some important principles at stake here that go above and beyond Rosemary's NERD project.  The analysis of electronic circuits is either rooted in logic and reason, or else it's just a nonsensical exercise in wishful thinking.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 09:16:14 PM
Cultural relativism, moral relativism, and now we have the good Counselor arguing for mathematical relativism. If I didn't believe he was pulling your leg I'd think he was serious.

All that is as it may be, but you cannot run your cookstove or refrigerator or jacuzzi or automobile on mathematical relativism.

It's a good thing that her utility provider doesn't calculate the way she does, or she'd be in the poorhouse after a single batch of oxtail soup.

But what does that have to do with testing? I have proposed, and even illustrated, a simple test that does not require any mathematics, relative or otherwise, other than flipping a coin to randomize the batteries. Other tests have also been proposed, but since we seem to have trouble with math and measurements on this project, why not do without them? Just run the circuit in load heating mode, getting near 200 degrees C on the uncovered resistive load, for a couple of days. Then do a dim bulb test comparing the running batteries with the set-aside batteries.

 No new apparatus is required other than a simple automatic automotive battery charger and a handful of brake light bulbs. I think we can take up a collection to buy you those items, Rosemary, if it will help you get started with your testing.

Oh, wait... what's the matter with me, I'm supposed to be _suppressing_ the technology...... oops. What will my Oil Baron Bosses say when they find out that I am actually encouraging the tests to begin?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 09:37:42 PM
There's one more thing glaringly wrong with eatenbyagrue's mathematical relativism argument. And that is: if it can apply to the NERD device, it can also apply to Tar Baby..... that is, if RA can use the definitions and techniques that result in HER calculations of overunity.... so can I. And.... since I am actually testing and publishing right now, and she is not..... well, do the math.

Oh, wait.... the Tar Baby batteries ran down before the set-aside one did. Well, that proves that Tar Baby is overunity, since in my mathematically relative calculation, negative power drain should produce negative run times, and 103 - 22 is 64.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
Using #1157 automotive bulbs with both filaments in parallel, one per battery, and figuring the maximum capacity that has been mentioned for the NERD batteries of 60 Amp-Hours..... the matter could probably be settled in three hours or less in the Dim Bulb test. Those bulbs put a heavy drain on the supply, having a cold-state resistance of only about half an Ohm. This could be shown completely in a five-minute time-lapse video. (ETA: Well, perhaps a bit longer. The bulbs draw about 2.7 Amps from 12 volt supply when warmed up. So use two or three per battery.)

So, allowing one day for charging with the automatic charger, two days running in load heating mode, and half a day for the Dim Bulb test, that is 3 and a half days PER test, so in, er, 14 days, someone could perform 14/3.5 = 4 entire complete tests, randomizing the batteries each time, and the only measurement anyone would have to make or interpret would be reading a clock and flipping a coin. Schedule one more and make it 3 out of five for the Big Win.

Of course we need to make sure that the device is in "big heat" mode, as shown in the second half of the NERD video, heating that load to 190 degrees C, for the duration of the 48 hour runtime on the circuit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2012, 01:10:51 AM
Just to be sure nobody misses it, here is a second posting of the annotated diagram showing how the current flows in the NERD RAT circuit when it is running in negatively offset oscillation mode.

The green shows the pulsed clockwise DC current flow that powers the circuit.  What causes the current to pulse is the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array acting like an oscillator.

The orange shows the AC-coupled current flow that flows back and forth between the Q2-Q5 MOSFET oscillator and the battery ground via the 0.25-ohm current sensing resistor.  For simplicity, only this AC current flow path is being shown.

The key point is that while the NERD circuit is running in negatively offset oscillation mode, the current that the DSO sees is NOT the battery current.  The current that the DSO sees is due to the AC-coupled output from the MOSFET oscillator.

Therefore, all of Rosemary's DSO scope captures that show "COP infinity" are invalid because the RATs are looking at the Q2-Q5 oscillator current when in fact they should be looking at the battery current.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 04, 2012, 01:32:46 AM
I think Rosemary just needs to lay out her laws of physics as they need to apply to her device in order to achieve overunity.  So like with that quibble you guys had over the heat calculations, Rosemary should just lay out her givens here.  If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.  You guys can come up with your own formulas and make your underunity devices, but Rosemary's formula gives her overunity, so I think she deserves recognition for this.


Rosemary, if I had an overunity prize to give, I would give it to you.  Also, I do not really think it matters whether Rosemary's laws of physics match up exactly with our understanding of them, because laws change all the time, and her interpretation may very well be valid.


Maybe you guys are just reluctant to hand out your overunity prizes because you only have one of them, and you are not yet ready to part with them.  So how about we create a new overunity prize category?  Something like the Free Energy World First, something like that.  We just make a website, award Rosemary the prize for the device she has poured her life work around, and she can maybe preface it with the laws of physics as she sees them and how the device creates energy under those laws, and I think everyone will be happy, no?  Probably no monetary award, but at least she will get the recognition she deserves.

I like your rules there eaten. Shouldn't we ALL be allowed to do the same and claim all the prizes being offered? It would be soooooo easy according to your terms and conditions. Everyone would be a winner! How would you manage all these winners?

I as well as most others here I assume are quite curious to hear this. Please enlighten us.  :)

I can't imagine your sort of argument holds up too well in court battles (and I most certainly hope you don't try it there). Wouldn't you be laughed out of court for trying to pass off re-written laws to benefit your client?

Why would you want to re-write the time-proven laws which govern electrical physics?
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 02:34:28 AM
@MH, .99: Thanks for that.... it's very clear to me. I can even pull the Q1 mosfet right out of its socket while Tar Baby is running in that mode and it doesn't affect anything at all.

However..... when the NERD circuit is running in the mode you describe, even the RATs only claim that the "heat at the load relates to 5 Watts", which of course comes from the bogus scope math trace... and the load barely warms at all, since the oscillations don't ever turn the mosfet on properly.

BUT... and this is extremely important.... in the second part of the demo video, the NERD circuit is NOT operating in this mode.

They are using a POSITIVE going gate drive pulse, from zero volts to around 4 or more volts _positive_ as shown by the scope displays, the narrator's voiceover, and the heat in the load. This mode, while still making oscillations in the Q2-Q5 array, also turns on the Q1 mosfet _WITHOUT_ oscillations, and turns it on nearly fully. This is shown by the scope traces and the load heating. It is in this mode that the battery will drain over a reasonable time interval. In the first mode, described by .99, there is so little real current flowing to the load that it will take a long time, perhaps even weeks, for a fully charged 60 volt nominal pack to deplete "noticeably".

The Q1 mosfet is on during the NON-oscillating portion of the NERD device's cycles in this second, "big heat" operating mode, as shown in the NERD demo video.

The explanation for that odd removal of one battery from the stack, leaving 48 nominal volts, I have posted elsewhere, and that is very telling also.

Here below is the Tek scope shot showing the gate drive signal from the second part of the NERD demo video. Note how they have it displayed... very clever and misleading, with the TOP of the trace at the scope's centerline where one would normally display a baseline level of a single trace. Look at the left side of the display, where the channel's zero baseline marker is. The oscillations are sitting at the _bottom_ of the trace and the pulse is going to at least 4 volts _positive_. The other traces have been turned off because they give too much information... but later, on the Le Croy display attached below, the telltale signs are all there: substantial current shown on the CVR trace in the NON oscillating portions (Items 1 and 2), a drop in the common drain voltage during the NON oscillating portions (5, 6 and 10, 11, 12), and of course the gate drive signal itself (14, 15), clearly showing the positive drive pulse with no or minimal negative excursion.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2012, 02:51:15 AM
TK:

I actually haven't looked at the RAT video since it was released and you are more familiar with the claim than me.  So indeed, I am only discussing the negatively offset oscillation mode.

I was under the impression that the claim was centered around this mode but I could be wrong.  It's also possible that when Rosemary was talking about the big heat being generated that she was not aware that Q1 was switching on.  In fact that you made mention of the fact that Q1 was likely only switching partially on, which is something one assumes they would have wanted to avoid at all costs.  I am chalking this up to ignorance on the part of the NERDs unless informed otherwise.

But, a picture is worth a thousand words....   :)

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 03:11:51 AM
Well, look at the CVR trace, the yellow, top trace in the LeCroy shot. The channel is set to 2 volts per big division (16). The zero baseline is at my number 2, and the level of the trace during the non-oscillating bits is sitting at, as best as I can tell, about 1 and a half minor ticks above the baseline. So if a minor tick is 2/5 of a  volt (there are 5 minor ticks per big division) the current trace is showing a drop across the CVR of 3/5 of a volt or 0.6 volt. Since the CVR is 0.25 Ohms..... by Ohm's law we are seeing a current of I = V/R = 0.6/0.25 or about 2.4 amps.  From a 48 volt supply (one battery inexplicably pulled for this part, remember)  with 14 ohms total circuit resistance (mosfet fully on) the current should be close to I = V/R = 48/14 = a bit over 3.4 amps. So I think the Q1 mosfet is nearly fully on, but not quite. Another volt on the gate drive input amplitude or positive offset will turn it on fully. And... if they had kept the 60 volts of battery... it would pop from thermal runaway. Check the data sheet for the max current and dissipation, and look at the tiny heatsink on the NERD board for this lone mosfet.

ETA: This has implications for testing. Clearly, if five or six batteries are used, giving 60 or 72 volts,  and the "big heat" mode is required, that mosfet just isn't going to survive. (72 volts divided by 14 ohms is over 5 amps.... when the mosfet gets hot it will fail.) Perhaps if it was on a big heatsink with fan cooling it might survive, but it is still flirting with its absolute maximum current when hot, even at 48 volts. (Why use a high-voltage mosfet when you need a high-current one instead? Because they are magic, of course.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2012, 03:18:24 AM
TK:

I read everything you said the first go round the other day and it all made sense to me.  I suppose one of the big questions is is this stuff about Q1 switching on covered in the NERD paper or not.  If it's not mentioned then I would think that they were comfortably numb.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 03:31:22 AM
TK:

I read everything you said the first go round the other day and it all made sense to me.  I suppose one of the big questions is is this stuff about Q1 switching on covered in the NERD paper or not.  If it's not mentioned then I would think that they were comfortably numb.

MileHigh

Nah... I think somebody (not RA) probably knew just exactly what was happening. Otherwise why display that single trace on the Tek the way they did? They wanted it to LOOK like a negative-going pulse when in fact it wasn't at all. 

In fact, they could have gotten exactly the same waveshape and circuit behaviour by selecting "positive pulse only" and not using the offset control. But then they wouldn't have been able to say "we used the negative pulse only setting" on the FG, to hide the effect of the offset setting.

I'm being as charitable as possible here. Either they did it deliberately, which is bad, or they did it by accident, which in my opinion is worse.

I mean... look at the math trace. It's showing the straight multiplication of two traces with positive means... and it's giving out a negative number for its own mean. That "unstable histogram" warning on the TEk trace means something !! It's not just gobbledegook !! It means that the scope cannot calculate proper statistics on that trace because of the noise, and so any math performed using that trace will be unreliable or invalid !!The LeCroy isn't complaining because it's not quite as capable as the other one, not because it's not being fooled in the same manner.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 03:32:33 AM
Dear eatenbyagrue,

I am delighted to see that you are proposing a 'world' prize for recognition of my hard work related to over unity claims regardless of the thesis in support of it or of the results.  That's certainly as meritorious as are TK's claimed replications and is very much in keeping with the general tone of this forum that is entirely dedicated to the entire suppression of any evidence of over unity at all.  It would be an extraordinary departure if anything less was put to the table.

I think it is perhaps, long overdue to remind TK et al - that our claim has NOTHING to do with the demonstration that he seems intent on referencing.  Our claim is entirely and only represented in the two-part paper that Poynty very kindly made publicly accessible.  However, it is appreciated that TK would not be able to argue that evidence - so one must make allowances for his excessive and rather adventurous misrepresentations.  I would also propose that perhaps you could extend that proposed prize to include his own extraordinary efforts in this regard.  I do not think that anyone - in the history of these forums - has managed to so entirely misrepresent anything at all - with such a baffling series of scientific abuse coupled with an excessive liberality of invective and insult.  Commendably unprofessional.  And entirely adequate to the required 'disinformation program' that he relies on to earn his keep.  Hopefully it will buy him that Buick which he covets.

And I wonder if a further prize shouldn't be nominated for those trolls who, with Harti's encouragement, have usurped ownership of this thread.  It seems that they can allege anything at all - without limitation - with a freedom of expression that Joseph Goebbels would have difficulty in emulating.

In any event. It all lends the required gravitas to this search for over unity.  And it's a salutary reminder to us all that our over unity forums are actually only a lure to the unsuspecting - to suppress any kind of information that may advance the public good and that may free us from our gridlocked reliance on our equally abusive monopolists.  Who are we mere mortals to challenge all that absolute control - well funded as it is?

Kindest regards,
Rosie
added
corrected
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 03:35:37 AM
So test the thing. Test it. TEST IT.

Show that it performs as you claim, because NOTHING that you have posted so far, including the word salad papers you keep citing, supports your claim.


AND... if Rosemary continues with the ad hominem attacks and abuse and comparisons to historical figures ... SO WILL I. There cannot be two standards of discourse here.

Note once again that SHE misrepresents me and my commentary. She does not provide references for anything, except her word salad "papers". Where have I "misrepresented" anything about her circuit or claims? Where has SHE misrepresented anything about her circuit, or about me?
DO THE MATH.
Rosemary is wallowing in hypocrisy, mendacity, and wilful ignorance.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 03:52:09 AM
Dear TinselKoala

Regarding your instructions to my attorney.  I will ensure that my attorney get receipt of this and will most certainly address all the issues that you have raised.  Certainly they are apposite and require full explanation.  And when that consultation is completed and the questions that you raised have been fully addressed and when you have been answered - then I am reasonably satisfied that you will be billed accordingly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2012, 03:55:08 AM
Me thinks that Rosie Posie is just trying to gloss over recent events and technical arguments and is simply using a strategy of cognitive dissonance coupled with "double agent" slurs against the web site.  She is like a poor Southern belle in denial that the end is Nigh and the Cause is over.  Just keep your eyes closed for a few minutes and when they open it will be 1850 again.

Vivien Leigh eat your heart out!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 03:58:23 AM
Ainslie said,
 
Quote
I think it is perhaps, long overdue to remind TK et al - that our claim has NOTHING to do with the demonstration that he seems intent on referencing. 

 Here are some screenshots from the video in question. Perhaps my "confusion" is understandable... since I know how to read.

You are claiming heat to the load, with battery recharging, are you not? Isn't that what these slides say?

Oh.... I forgot. We are in "relative language" territory where words only mean what Ainslie says they mean, and they mean different things when I say them than when She says them.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:03:32 AM
Dear TinselKoala

Regarding your instructions to my attorney.  I will ensure that my attorney get receipt of this and will most certainly address all the issues that you have raised.  Certainly they are apposite and require full explanation.  And when that consultation is completed and the questions that you raised have been fully addressed and when you have been answered - then I am reasonably satisfied that you will be billed accordingly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Why don't you ask eatenbyagrue who will get the bill for YOUR attorney's time spent researching and understanding YOUR claim. You might also ask him what he considers MY time to be worth.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 04:03:53 AM
My dear Tinsel Koala

I had nothing whatsoever to do the with public posting of that video demonstration.  And I put it to you and any readers on this forum that the demonstration absolutely does not represent our claim.  At best it is merely 'related' to our claim.  Our claim is entirely described in the 2-part paper that you are intent on ignoring.

Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:06:27 AM
And of course the innocent bystanders will notice just WHO took the thread off the topic of testing and evaluating the NERD circuit....

 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 04:06:35 AM
Why don't you ask eatenbyagrue who will get the bill for YOUR attorney's time spent researching and understanding YOUR claim. You might also ask him what he considers MY time to be worth.

Are you saying that eatenbyagrue represents you TinselKoala?  That explains much.  I'm afraid you will need to look to your principals for payment of your fee.  We do not, in any way, consider ourselves liable.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 04:09:35 AM
And of course the innocent bystanders will notice just WHO took the thread off the topic of testing and evaluating the NERD circuit....

 8)

INDEED.  There are copious reminders of this.  Pages and pages of invective and misinformation courtesy yourself, Glen Lettenmaier and, latterly, our very own MileHigh - who, as we all know, has his head in the clouds and his feet well above ground level.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:10:26 AM
My dear Tinsel Koala

I had nothing whatsoever to do the with public posting of that video demonstration.  And I put it to you and any readers on this forum that the demonstration absolutely does not represent our claim.  At best it is merely 'related' to our claim.  Our claim is entirely described in the 2-part paper that you are intent on ignoring.

Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie Pose
Rosemary, YOU posted that video yourself, under the very typical alias of "dooziedont".
Here's the quote from the "description":
Quote
On 12 March 2011 academics from multiple local universities, colleges and technikons were invited to witness the anomalous behavior of our test rig. Here are presented two tests on the same rig showing both a higher and lower output wattage.  No measurable energy was measured to have been delivered by the supply. This was shown to those in attendance at that demonstration. Unhappily, of the 32 academics invited, no experts in electrical engineering atttended.  The balance, although qualified, cannot be considered expert in this field.  We trust they'll endorse the measurement protocols as being adequate for proof of anomalies.

Anybody here will recognize your writing style here, and your voice can be heard in the background of the video.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:13:28 AM
INDEED.  There are copious reminders of this.  Pages and pages of invective and misinformation courtesy yourself, Glen Lettenmaier and, latterly, our very own MileHigh - who, as we all know, has his head in the clouds and his feet well above ground level.

Rosie Posie

Uh-uh, Rosie Poser. Look back at the thread since it was reopened. I have been discussing testing and evaluating your device, suggesting tests that even you could probably manage to perform, and continuing the reasonable dialog with MH and .99 about the features of your circuit. YOU have made many posts off that topic. In fact you have not made a SINGLE post relating to your upcoming test-- the reason that Stefan reopened this thread.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 04:14:16 AM
AGAIN

I am absolutely NOT responsible for the posting of that video in the public domain.  And again.  It absolutely DOES NOT represent the claim.  It only RELATES to the claim.

Rosemary, YOU posted that video yourself, under the very typical alias of "dooziedont".
Here's the quote from the "description":
Anybody here will recognize your writing style here, and your voice can be heard in the background of the video.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:16:51 AM
Are you saying that eatenbyagrue represents you TinselKoala?  That explains much.  I'm afraid you will need to look to your principals for payment of your fee.  We do not, in any way, consider ourselves liable.

Rosie Pose
Well, Rosie Poser, did I say or imply that, anywhere? No, I did not, and you again are distorting reality.
He offered to represent YOU, as I recall.

And you are right-- the only thing you are "liable" to do is to continue on with your mendacity and prevarication, refusing to perform the simplest tests to demonstrate your claim... because deep down inside YOU YOURSELF doubt that it is.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 04:19:22 AM
I will not be conducting any tests at all while there is any reminder at all - on this forum - of your excessive indulgence in slander.  What you are hoping is that I will engage in any way at all with any of your demands.  I dare not.  It would be tarnished by association.

TK. Let me know if you want me to engage my attorney on your instructions.  And while you're at it - could you remind Glen Lettenmaier that he's promised us a 'class action' law suit.  We're more than ready to engage.  I'm only concerned that his own attorneys are not.

Rosie Pose

Uh-uh, Rosie Poser. Look back at the thread since it was reopened. I have been discussing testing and evaluating your device, suggesting tests that even you could probably manage to perform, and continuing the reasonable dialog with MH and .99 about the features of your circuit. YOU have made many posts off that topic. In fact you have not made a SINGLE post relating to your upcoming test-- the reason that Stefan reopened this thread.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:22:27 AM
AGAIN

I am absolutely NOT responsible for the posting of that video in the public domain.  And again.  It absolutely DOES NOT represent the claim.  It only RELATES to the claim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont

Who wrote the description? It sure sounds like you, with the "we" and the "our" and the "academics" and so on.... and that is CERTAINLY you speaking in the background, and your present protestations are sounding awfully weak and pitiful. You are trying to disavow the only REAL data that there is, because I and others have shown what it REALLY shows, not what you would like it to show.
You forgot your password and can't delete the video because of that. No matter... I've got it saved in a secure location and I'm sure others do too.

After all this time discussing this video, suddenly NOW you try to disavow it. This is amazing.

Cover it up, Rosemary. Suppress the truth. That is what you are trying to do.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:23:44 AM
I will not be conducting any tests at all ...(snip)
Rosie Pose

Well... frankly, Rosie Poser, we all knew that, all along. You have no intention of testing and you never did.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 04:34:26 AM
Well, Rosie Poser, did I say or imply that, anywhere? No, I did not, and you again are distorting reality.
He offered to represent YOU, as I recall.

And you are right-- the only thing you are "liable" to do is to continue on with your mendacity and prevarication, refusing to perform the simplest tests to demonstrate your claim... because deep down inside YOU YOURSELF doubt that it is.
I see you've been editing.  In any event.  Here's the first answer 
Why don't you ask eatenbyagrue who will get the bill for YOUR attorney's time spent researching and understanding YOUR claim. You might also ask him what he considers MY time to be worth.
The only thing to be construed is that eatenbyagrue will be expected to comment on my attorney's fee - which can only be because he has been appointed by you.

And regarding your continued 'abuses' they do not merit an answer.

Rosie Pose

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 04:42:18 AM
Well... frankly, Rosie Poser, we all knew that, all along. You have no intention of testing and you never did.

Intriguing how you manage to eliminate the sense of my quote while referencing it.  Extraordinary skills you have TK.  Is this what you bill for?  Certainly it's what you use to misrepresent things.

Here's what I actually wrote.  And I think we're still waiting for an answer.
I will not be conducting any tests at all while there is any reminder at all - on this forum - of your excessive indulgence in slander.  What you are hoping is that I will engage in any way at all with any of your demands.  I dare not.  It would be tarnished by association.

TK. Let me know if you want me to engage my attorney on your instructions.  And while you're at it - could you remind Glen Lettenmaier that he's promised us a 'class action' law suit.  We're more than ready to engage.  I'm only concerned that his own attorneys are not.

And here's how you referenced it..
I will not be conducting any tests at all...snip

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 05:01:36 AM
Well... frankly, Rosie Poser, we all knew that, all along. You have no intention of testing and you never did.

I have every intention of doing a battery draw down test.  I do not know whether I'll be able to conduct that test through this forum.  That's in Harti's hands.  And it's heavily dependent on certain editorial requirements related to this thread - and, indeed, to another thread here on this forum.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 04, 2012, 05:05:36 AM
I will not be conducting any tests at all while there is any reminder at all - on this forum- of your excessive indulgence in slander.  What you are hoping is that I will engage in any way at all with any of your demands.  I dare not.  It would be tarnished by association.

TK. Let me know if you want me to engage my attorney on your instructions.  And while you're at it - could you remind Glen Lettenmaier that he's promised us a 'class action' law suit.  We're more than ready to engage.  I'm only concerned that his own attorneys are not.

Rosie Pose

I will not be conducting any tests at all while there is any reminder at all - on this forum

Rosemary I'm glad you finally realize you cannot do any testing as you are unqualified to make the correct process. You have finally excepted the fact that Donovan Martin must get involved or have the thread closed for good.

This is why there is a "ALL OUT HUNT" and finders bounty for Donovan Martin, the only known possibly qualified person of your NERD RAT team Rosemary whom has appeared in all four (4) technical papers from February 2009 until August 2011 that you Rosemary have submitted to several accredited journals or magazine for possible publication.

COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
( EIT_paper.pdf )
ROSEMARY AINSLIE DONOVAN MARTIN         02. February 2009

Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems 
( 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf )
R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus
( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure
( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron


This person Donovan Martin can validate your CLAIM Rosemary of a COP>INFINITY ..... COP greater than INFINITY and his involvement in this COP>INFINITY NERD RAT project !!!

Rosemary, members and guests here is some reminders in Rosemary's words of Donovan's Martins qualified involvement and expertise in all Rosemary's "Over Unity" devices.

http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59357-post257.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59357-post257.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59721-post369.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59721-post369.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/60215-post494.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/60215-post494.html)

http://www.energeticforum.com/83898-post49.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/83898-post49.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/84799-post91.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/84799-post91.html)

The web sites of Donovan Martin publicly available for anyone to see  ......

http://www.donixes.co.za/ (http://www.donixes.co.za/)
http://donixes.webs.com/ (http://donixes.webs.com/)
http://cncwings.tripod.com/ (http://cncwings.tripod.com/)

I'll be also e-mailing Stefan with your posted personal statement of not wanting to do any more testing on any of your experimental devices mentioned in the thread .... even the 555 timer version you thumbed your nose at Stefan and everyone else and refused to build.

FTC
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on April 04, 2012, 05:09:42 AM
Dear eatenbyagrue,

I am delighted to see that you are proposing a 'world' prize for recognition of my hard work related to over unity claims regardless of the thesis in support of it or of the results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cUExrTRSRw
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2012, 05:09:50 AM
So Rosemary you have gone from standing by your DSO measurements and insisting that your "scientific measurements" were beyond reproach while you demanded two over unity prizes based on your testing and your report - to stating that the very same testing and your report, "DOES NOT represent the claim.  It only RELATES to the claim."

You are unbelievable and everybody can see right though you.  Even you yourself now realize that you had no clue what you were doing when you analyzed that circuit for months, flush with the feeling that you were measuring over unity, "COP infinity" - and look at where you are now.

It's time to "call it" and just move on.  If only you were capable of admitting that you are wrong.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 05:18:30 AM
Hello again MilesHigh
So Rosemary you have gone from standing by your DSO measurements and insisting that your "scientific measurements" were beyond reproach while you demanded two over unity prizes based on your testing and your report - to stating that the very same testing and your report, "DOES NOT represent the claim.  It only RELATES to the claim."
Yes INDEED.  I stand by ALL our DSO measurements.  They ARE beyond reproach.  We DO INDEED demand consideration for at least 2 over unity prizes and possibly a third.  And yes indeed.  Our report DOES NOT represent our claim.  Our claim is ONLY described in our 2 part paper.

You are unbelievable and everybody can see right though you.  Even you yourself now realize that you had no clue what you were doing when you analyzed that circuit for months, flush with the feeling that you were measuring over unity, "COP infinity" - and look at where you are now.
I am sorry that I am unbelievable.  It may have something to do with your own gross misrepresentations coupled with those of TK and some others.  We are NOT measuring over unity.  But indeed, we are still 'flush' with the evidence of COP INFINITY.

Regards, MIleHigh
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2012, 05:32:24 AM
Don't make the whole forum laugh with your word games Rosie Posie - your claim is finished - kaput.  Just like I said it would be the case.  You should just forget about all of this nonsense and move on.  There no "magical zipon effect" coming from the binding of the matter in the inductive resistor, remember that?

The whole thing, this crazy miswiring of MOSFETs, has been a year-long exercise in silliness and futility and abject ignorance.  The fat lady has finally sung.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on April 04, 2012, 05:37:14 AM
I see you've been editing.  In any event.  Here's the first answer  The only thing to be construed is that eatenbyagrue will be expected to comment on my attorney's fee - which can only be because he has been appointed by you.

And regarding your continued 'abuses' they do not merit an answer.

Rosie Pose

I represent no one yet!  Although I am fully in Rosemary's corner on this.  I only wish I knew more about electronics so I could follow some of what you guys are demonstrating with the scopes.   Rosemary, do not give up!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 05:40:10 AM
Whined, you mean. No, it's not over until it's over, MH. Even if it dies and is buried on this forum, you can be sure that RA will continue, on some other forum somewhere, with a new set of people who will believe her fantasy, beginning with her "patent' and her non-existent endorsements from big companies... right through the COP >17 bogosity and up to the present set of ridiculous claims.

She even claims she didn't post that video !  That has me totally flabbergasted. I could tell her that the sky is blue and she would deny it and compare me to Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung for suggesting the very idea.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 05:46:05 AM
Look, eatenbyagrue: she NOW claims that she didn't post that video and that it doesn't represent her claims, only that it "relates" to them. After all this time discussing the video-- it started long before you or I joined this thread -- NOW she disavows it.

But it is perfectly clear that she did in fact post it or cause it to be posted, she wrote the description, and even uploaded the other two videos on that channel-- pertaining to the second Donovan Martin paper on the Faraday lines of force.

Many times in the past she's opened forum accounts under various aliases or started blogs,  and then abandoned them, probably because she forgot the login details. The "dooziedont" account on YT has been inactive since the end of March 2011, shortly after she posted the three videos. That's what happens when you forget a password !
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 05:52:25 AM
Don't make the whole forum laugh with your word games Rosie Posie - your claim is finished - kaput.  Just like I said it would be the case.  You should just forget about all of this nonsense and move on.  There no "magical zipon effect" coming from the binding of the matter in the inductive resistor, remember that?

The whole thing, this crazy miswiring of MOSFETs, has been a year-long exercise in silliness and futility and abject ignorance.  The fat lady has finally sung.
Really MileHigh?  Do you honestly think that anyone at all other than you, TK himself, Glen Lettenmaier and possibly a few members who are actively engaged in this 'debunk' have been convinced by anything at all that TK has proposed?  He uses the wrong data against the wrong circuit with the wrong DSO references against a supposed 'claim'.  He posts a series of videos against a variety of circuit variants which are filmed in such dark conditions that it challenges anyone with 20 20 vision.  And he tries to draw conclusions from that partial evidence with an abandon that is an embarrassment to good science.  He's circuits are a mess of wires that most amateurs would be ashamed to show.  And he insinuates and alleges and implies everything while he continues to show nothing at all that represents an intelligent and well considered argument.  He shows no complete circuits of what's being filmed and tabulates and then references a DSO shot - REPEATEDLY - with a glaring error in it that he still hasn't noticed - notwithstanding this being clearly explained to him.   He is over reliant on his tedious insistence on my incompetence and relies on these insinuations by refusing to reference our actual claim related as it is to our papers.  He has not even touched on the anomalies and - as a for instance - uses one video to explain a waveform that can only match our own when he sets his function generator to an AC setting. He insults everyone's intelligence here by assuming that all members and readers alike  are that easily 'suckered' by his misrepresentations and then proceeds to boast that this so called consultation fee of his is costing someone - somewhere - a fee that includes the price of a Buick.  And if that level of unprofessionalism is not enough - he then proceeds to try and negotiate with my own legal representative behind my back?  And this is the answer to my appeal to establish certain required parameters to test a circuit that not only merits but requires academic engagement.

I think you need to revise the facts here MileHigh.  Or if you're simply trying to convince yourself... then feel free.

Rosie Pose 'eo'.
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 06:00:49 AM
It seems that you are still trying to solicit some free legal advice TinselKoala.

Look, eatenbyagrue: she NOW claims that she didn't post that video and that it doesn't represent her claims, only that it "relates" to them. After all this time discussing the video-- it started long before you or I joined this thread -- NOW she disavows it.
Not only free legal advice but you solicit it with all the finesse of a 5 year old.   I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO.  IT DOES NOT REPRESENT OUR CLAIMS.  OUR CLAIM IS ONLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMS IN OUR PAPERS.  ALL OTHER WORK IS MERELY RELATED TO THAT CLAIM WHICH IS IN THAT PAPER. No amount of repeated allegation will change this until you manage to PROVE that I made that video publicly accessible.  When you've PROVED this - then LET ME KNOW.   

But it is perfectly clear that she did in fact post it or cause it to be posted, she wrote the description, and even uploaded the other two videos on that channel-- pertaining to the second Donovan Martin paper on the Faraday lines of force.
WHAT DONOVAN MARTIN PAPER?  THERE'S NO SUCH THING.  There are two papers that have been written by a group of collaborators.

Many times in the past she's opened forum accounts under various aliases or started blogs,  and then abandoned them, probably because she forgot the login details.
I have never abandoned any forums.  I have been locked out or banned.  And that the result of the incursions of yourself, and your team of trolls.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 06:08:39 AM
I represent no one yet!  Although I am fully in Rosemary's corner on this.  I only wish I knew more about electronics so I could follow some of what you guys are demonstrating with the scopes.   Rosemary, do not give up!

Thank you for the support eatenbyagrue.  I was beginning to wonder there.  And indeed - I will NOT give up.  Even if this is finally resolved through our courts.  In which case I intend making this a matter of public interest which I intend protecting. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 06:18:16 AM
Don't make the whole forum laugh with your word games Rosie Posie - your claim is finished - kaput.  Just like I said it would be the case.  You should just forget about all of this nonsense and move on.  There no "magical zipon effect" coming from the binding of the matter in the inductive resistor, remember that? The whole thing, this crazy miswiring of MOSFETs, has been a year-long exercise in silliness and futility and abject ignorance.  The fat lady has finally sung.
And with reference to this circuit - then if this is what you find so amusing - trust me so do I.  It has NOTHING to do with our circuit or our claim and I'm intrigued to see the amount of work that has gone into just this one more sample of yours and TK's urgent misdirections.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 06:20:23 AM
Really MileHigh?  Do you honestly think that anyone at all other than you, TK himself, Glen Lettenmaier and possibly a few members who are actively engaged in this 'debunk' have been convinced by anything at all that TK has proposed?  He uses the wrong data against the wrong circuit with the wrong DSO references against a supposed 'claim'.
LIAR.
Quote
He posts a series of videos against a variety of circuit variants which are filmed in such dark conditions that it challenges anyone with 20 20 vision.
LIAR.
Quote
And he tries to draw conclusions from that partial evidence with an abandon that is an embarrassment to good science.  He's circuits are a mess of wires that most amateurs would be ashamed to show.
YOU ARE A LIAR. My "mess" of wires was deliberate and necessary to emulate YOUR CRAZY PEGBOARD AND CLIPLEAD LAYOUT, you liar.
Quote
And he insinuates and alleges and implies everything while he continues to show nothing at all that represents an intelligent and well considered argument.  He shows no complete circuits of what's being filmed
LIAR LIAR LIAR.
Quote
and tabulates and then references a DSO shot - REPEATEDLY - with a glaring error in it that he still hasn't noticed - notwithstanding this being clearly explained to him. 
What are you talking about? What glaring error? SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS WITH REFERENCES you LIAR.
Quote
He is over reliant on his tedious insistence on my incompetence and relies on these insinuations by refusing to reference our actual claim related as it is to our papers.  He has not even touched on the anomalies and - as a for instance - uses one video to explain a waveform that can only match our own when he sets his function generator to an AC setting.
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR. YOU are LYING.
Quote
He insults everyone's intelligence here by assuming that all members and readers alike  are that easily 'suckered' by his misrepresentations and then proceeds to boast that this so called consultation fee of his is costing someone - somewhere - a fee that includes the price of a Buick. 
You idiot liar. You can't even get that part straight. Liar.
Quote
And if that level of unprofessionalism is not enough - he then proceeds to try and negotiate with my own legal representative behind my back? 
Here you are claiming that eatenbyagrue is your legal representative and that I have tried to suborn him. LIAR.
Quote
And this is the answer to my appeal to establish certain required parameters to test a circuit that not only merits but requires academic engagement.
Silly lying you. Nobody is stopping you from testing but YOU.
Quote
I think you need to revise the facts here MileHigh.  Or if you're simply trying to convince yourself... then feel free.

Rosie Pose 'eo'.
 :-*
You are the one trying to revise the facts here Rosemary LIAR Ains-lie.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2012, 06:22:46 AM
Quote
And with reference to this circuit - then if this is what you find so amusing - trust me so do I.  It has NOTHING to do with our circuit or our claim and I'm intrigued to see the amount of work that has gone into just this one more sample of yours and TK's urgent misdirections.

No Rosie what that diagram shows is that while you were giddy for months thinking that you were measuring "COP infinity" you weren't even measuring the battery current.  It's that bad and worse.

You are the one that is misdirecting right now by alleging that I am misdirecting.  It's over and your claim is finished.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 06:28:33 AM
Of course you posted the video and wrote the description. If not you, WHO then? And how did it get posted so SOON after the demonstration itself if YOU didn't post it?

Why have you only started claiming NOW that you didn't post that video? It has been discussed for some time, well before I got here, and you never claimed that it wasn't a full and complete presentation of your claims, authorized by you, before NOW.

And just when are you going to ignore your detractors and forge on ahead with your proof? Why let a bunch of trolls distract you from your holy purpose? GO AHEAD, save the world, Rosemary.... prove that you have what you claim. There is absolutely nothing stopping you--- except the truth.

The Video Demo was done on the 12th of March 2011, allegedly. The YouTube "dooziedont" account was created on the 12th of March, 2011. The video demo was uploaded on the 22nd of March 2011. And the last time the "dooziedont" login was active was the 31st of March 2011.
 Ten days... for the video to be cut, processed, titles added... and somehow ESCAPED into the wild without RA knowing or authorizing it.
Yep, and I'm going to be the next Pope, too.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 06:32:39 AM
LIAR. LIAR.YOU ARE A LIAR. My "mess" of wires was deliberate and necessary to emulate YOUR CRAZY PEGBOARD AND CLIPLEAD LAYOUT, you liar. LIAR LIAR LIAR. What are you talking about? What glaring error? SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS WITH REFERENCES you LIAR. LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR. YOU are LYING.  You idiot liar. You can't even get that part straight. Liar.  Here you are claiming that eatenbyagrue is your legal representative and that I have tried to suborn him. LIAR.  Silly lying you. Nobody is stopping you from testing but YOU.You are the one trying to revise the facts here Rosemary LIAR Ains-lie.

Denial has never constituted a defense.  And I am alleging nothing.  There is an entire thread that lends support to my statements.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 06:35:10 AM
Denial has never constituted a defense.  And I am alleging nothing.  There is an entire thread that lends support to my statements.

Rosemary

Sure, just like Powercat supported your claims. Just like Glen confirmed your claims.

That is... only inside your sick head.

Get off the net and go build something and test it. Or have your grounds privileges been taken away again?

TEST. SHOW YOUR WORK. STOP YAMMERING and TEST.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 04, 2012, 06:38:04 AM
Look, eatenbyagrue: she NOW claims that she didn't post that video and that it doesn't represent her claims, only that it "relates" to them. After all this time discussing the video-- it started long before you or I joined this thread -- NOW she disavows it.

But it is perfectly clear that she did in fact post it or cause it to be posted, she wrote the description, and even uploaded the other two videos on that channel-- pertaining to the second Donovan Martin paper on the Faraday lines of force.

Many times in the past she's opened forum accounts under various aliases or started blogs,  and then abandoned them, probably because she forgot the login details. The "dooziedont" account on YT has been inactive since the end of March 2011, shortly after she posted the three videos. That's what happens when you forget a password !

Hi TK,

This is epic to say the least ....

Rosemary disavows the video uploaded to YouTube as "dooziedont" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fyOmoGluMCc  the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration 12 MARCH 2011 ..... wow !! You can hear her voice in the background ....... hahahahahahaha ..... to funny !!!  ;D

What about these videos that "dooziedont" uploaded also ..... looks exactly like some of Donovan Martin's 3D rendering he's really good at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PxQDwDnV2xM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iv1V6E5ABNo

There is also a Rosemary Ainslie name used here at OU called "Doozy2" she took out when she got banned the first time .....  :P
http://www.overunity.com/profile/doozy2.24875/

Starting with some colorful postings showing her true colors ....  ???
http://www.overunity.com/profile/doozy2.24875/area/showposts/

There are several screen names she has here .... no surprise with as much as she has to hide.   :o

Rosemary does need some badly needed clinical help ... anyone who posts comments to themselves is really bent .....

Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 06:39:48 AM
Of course you posted the video and wrote the description. If not you, WHO then? And how did it get posted so SOON after the demonstration itself if YOU didn't post it?

Why have you only started claiming NOW that you didn't post that video? It has been discussed for some time, well before I got here, and you never claimed that it wasn't a full and complete presentation of your claims, authorized by you, before NOW.

And just when are you going to ignore your detractors and forge on ahead with your proof? Why let a bunch of trolls distract you from your holy purpose? GO AHEAD, save the world, Rosemary.... prove that you have what you claim. There is absolutely nothing stopping you--- except the truth.

Had I pointed out that this did not represent our claim we would all have been denied the opportunity of seeing your manifold allegations and to measure the urgency with which you promote them.  I am seriously obliged to you TinselKoala for your precipitous and ill considered 'RUSH' into a debunk based as I knew it was - on such an entirely irrelevant argument.  I certainly was NOT disappointed.  And it afforded us all that opportunity see the limit of your rather unprofessional skills applied to entirely irrelevant information.  What you should have done is constrained your comments to a more professional detachment and limited it to the papers that you are well aware of but dared not remark on.  You still seem to think that people are persuaded by loud noises and empty protests.  One day you may actually learn that you rather underestimate the intelligence of those who engage here.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 06:50:11 AM
And lest Glen Lettenmaier again post a half page or so of spurious and unrelated links let me bring this comment back to your focus TinselKoala.

Don't make the whole forum laugh with your word games Rosie Posie - your claim is finished - kaput.  Just like I said it would be the case.  You should just forget about all of this nonsense and move on.  There no "magical zipon effect" coming from the binding of the matter in the inductive resistor, remember that?

The whole thing, this crazy miswiring of MOSFETs, has been a year-long exercise in silliness and futility and abject ignorance.  The fat lady has finally sung.
Really MileHigh?  Do you honestly think that anyone at all other than you, TK himself, Glen Lettenmaier and possibly a few members who are actively engaged in this 'debunk' have been convinced by anything at all that TK has proposed?  He uses the wrong data against the wrong circuit with the wrong DSO references against a supposed 'claim'.  He posts a series of videos against a variety of circuit variants which are filmed in such dark conditions that it challenges anyone with 20 20 vision.  And he tries to draw conclusions from that partial evidence with an abandon that is an embarrassment to good science.  He's circuits are a mess of wires that most amateurs would be ashamed to show.  And he insinuates and alleges and implies everything while he continues to show nothing at all that represents an intelligent and well considered argument.  He shows no complete circuits of what's being filmed and tabulates and then references a DSO shot - REPEATEDLY - with a glaring error in it that he still hasn't noticed - notwithstanding this being clearly explained to him.   He is over reliant on his tedious insistence on my incompetence and relies on these insinuations by refusing to reference our actual claim related as it is to our papers.  He has not even touched on the anomalies and - as a for instance - uses one video to explain a waveform that can only match our own when he sets his function generator to an AC setting. He insults everyone's intelligence here by assuming that all members and readers alike  are that easily 'suckered' by his misrepresentations and then proceeds to boast that this so called consultation fee of his is costing someone - somewhere - a fee that includes the price of a Buick.  And if that level of unprofessionalism is not enough - he then proceeds to try and negotiate with my own legal representative behind my back?  And this is the answer to my appeal to establish certain required parameters to test a circuit that not only merits but requires academic engagement.

I think you need to revise the facts here MileHigh.  Or if you're simply trying to convince yourself... then feel free.

Rosie Pose 'eo'.
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 06:52:14 AM
Oh, so you managed to snare poor little TK in your web did you... all this BS over the past year, was just so that I could finally, in February, be manipulated into this little trap of yours, eh?
Riiigght, that's a good one, Rosemary.


Quote
   Created by   dooziedont     (Block User (http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont#)Send Message (http://www.youtube.com/inbox?to_user_ext_ids=kYhmmMlbYWylWH596GHAnA&action_compose=1))    Latest Activity Mar 31, 2011   Date Joined Mar 12, 2011     Age 63   Country South Africa   

You aren't taking care of yourself properly... I would have guessed you were in your late seventies from your "greetings from SA" video.
Or maybe you just lied about your age when you registered the "dooziedont" account.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 06:56:14 AM
And lest Glen Lettenmaier again post a half page or so of spurious and unrelated links let me bring this comment back to your focus TinselKoala.
Really MileHigh?  Do you honestly think that anyone at all other than you, TK himself, Glen Lettenmaier and possibly a few members who are actively engaged in this 'debunk' have been convinced by anything at all that TK has proposed?  He uses the wrong data against the wrong circuit with the wrong DSO references against a supposed 'claim'.  He posts a series of videos against a variety of circuit variants which are filmed in such dark conditions that it challenges anyone with 20 20 vision.  And he tries to draw conclusions from that partial evidence with an abandon that is an embarrassment to good science.  He's circuits are a mess of wires that most amateurs would be ashamed to show.  And he insinuates and alleges and implies everything while he continues to show nothing at all that represents an intelligent and well considered argument.  He shows no complete circuits of what's being filmed and tabulates and then references a DSO shot - REPEATEDLY - with a glaring error in it that he still hasn't noticed - notwithstanding this being clearly explained to him.   He is over reliant on his tedious insistence on my incompetence and relies on these insinuations by refusing to reference our actual claim related as it is to our papers.  He has not even touched on the anomalies and - as a for instance - uses one video to explain a waveform that can only match our own when he sets his function generator to an AC setting. He insults everyone's intelligence here by assuming that all members and readers alike  are that easily 'suckered' by his misrepresentations and then proceeds to boast that this so called consultation fee of his is costing someone - somewhere - a fee that includes the price of a Buick.  And if that level of unprofessionalism is not enough - he then proceeds to try and negotiate with my own legal representative behind my back?  And this is the answer to my appeal to establish certain required parameters to test a circuit that not only merits but requires academic engagement.

I think you need to revise the facts here MileHigh.  Or if you're simply trying to convince yourself... then feel free.

Rosie Pose 'eo'.
 :-*

What, you think you can post the same set of lies AGAIN and get away with it? You already made this post once, dear. I think you need to take your meds and go lie ... ha ha , I mean go rest for a while until you get your memory back.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 07:02:14 AM
Oh, so you managed to snare poor little TK in your web did you... all this BS over the past year, was just so that I could finally, in February, be manipulated into this little trap of yours, eh?
Riiigght, that's a good one, Rosemary.

No TK - I did not intend to snare you.  You did that yourself.  But we were reasonably certain that you'd go to some considerable lengths to refute our claim based on ANYTHING AT ALL other than our papers.    And INDEED.  You did not disappoint us.  And your 'debunk' is not only irrelevant as a consequence - it is compounded by the rather crude application of allegations and innuendos and insinuations that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda.  And you and MileHigh still seem sublimely unaware of the effect of this.  Propaganda - as it's been advanced in the past is now so OVERUSED - that it serves to counter that propaganda.  When will you learn? 

Sorry if this has cost you that consulting fee.  Maybe try again?  And this time try and apply some professionalism?  That would be nice.

Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 07:06:07 AM
Golly - it seems that I did indeed repost this post.  I am, indeed, getting way too old.

Rosie Pose.

Don't make the whole forum laugh with your word games Rosie Posie - your claim is finished - kaput.  Just like I said it would be the case.  You should just forget about all of this nonsense and move on.  There no "magical zipon effect" coming from the binding of the matter in the inductive resistor, remember that?

The whole thing, this crazy miswiring of MOSFETs, has been a year-long exercise in silliness and futility and abject ignorance.  The fat lady has finally sung.
Really MileHigh?  Do you honestly think that anyone at all other than you, TK himself, Glen Lettenmaier and possibly a few members who are actively engaged in this 'debunk' have been convinced by anything at all that TK has proposed?  He uses the wrong data against the wrong circuit with the wrong DSO references against a supposed 'claim'.  He posts a series of videos against a variety of circuit variants which are filmed in such dark conditions that it challenges anyone with 20 20 vision.  And he tries to draw conclusions from that partial evidence with an abandon that is an embarrassment to good science.  He's circuits are a mess of wires that most amateurs would be ashamed to show.  And he insinuates and alleges and implies everything while he continues to show nothing at all that represents an intelligent and well considered argument.  He shows no complete circuits of what's being filmed and tabulates and then references a DSO shot - REPEATEDLY - with a glaring error in it that he still hasn't noticed - notwithstanding this being clearly explained to him.   He is over reliant on his tedious insistence on my incompetence and relies on these insinuations by refusing to reference our actual claim related as it is to our papers.  He has not even touched on the anomalies and - as a for instance - uses one video to explain a waveform that can only match our own when he sets his function generator to an AC setting. He insults everyone's intelligence here by assuming that all members and readers alike  are that easily 'suckered' by his misrepresentations and then proceeds to boast that this so called consultation fee of his is costing someone - somewhere - a fee that includes the price of a Buick.  And if that level of unprofessionalism is not enough - he then proceeds to try and negotiate with my own legal representative behind my back?  And this is the answer to my appeal to establish certain required parameters to test a circuit that not only merits but requires academic engagement.

I think you need to revise the facts here MileHigh.  Or if you're simply trying to convince yourself... then feel free.

Rosie Pose 'eo'.
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 07:23:27 AM
What, three times the charm? Click your heels and your lies become true? Sorry, this isn't Oz.

Golly - it seems that I did indeed repost this post.  I am, indeed, getting way too old.

Rosie Pose.
Really MileHigh?  Do you honestly think that anyone at all other than you, TK himself, Glen Lettenmaier and possibly a few members who are actively engaged in this 'debunk' have been convinced by anything at all that TK has proposed? 
It's all there in black and white. Nobody has refuted me with data and references, and several people have indeed been "convinced". Remember the 25.6 million Joules? Remember the "one Joule= one Watt per second"? Foolish idiot, you.
Quote
He uses the wrong data against the wrong circuit with the wrong DSO references against a supposed 'claim'. 
YOUR circuit. YOUR DSO shots. YOUR actual claim.
Quote
He posts a series of videos against a variety of circuit variants which are filmed in such dark conditions that it challenges anyone with 20 20 vision.
The lighting is not too bad, and nobody but you has complained. In fact the videos have garnered many compliments; the "phase relationship" video alone has gotten nearly 200 views already.
Quote
And he tries to draw conclusions from that partial evidence with an abandon that is an embarrassment to good science.  He's circuits are a mess of wires that most amateurs would be ashamed to show.
This from the "white pegboard, cliplead, and feedback" lady. I laugh in your face, idiot lying fool.
Quote
And he insinuates and alleges and implies everything while he continues to show nothing at all that represents an intelligent and well considered argument.
Just because YOU can't follow the argument doesn't mean that it isn't wellconsidered, and OTHER people with an education can indeed follow my argument just fine.
Quote
  He shows no complete circuits of what's being filmed
This is a lie again. I have shown "complete" and accurate circuits.... in stark contrast to what YOU have shown, RA, with your scribbles and made-up symbols and outright WRONG diagrams.
Quote
and tabulates and then references a DSO shot - REPEATEDLY - with a glaring error in it that he still hasn't noticed - notwithstanding this being clearly explained to him.
What error, what reference, what explanation. Nobody knows what you are talking about here.
Quote
  He is over reliant on his tedious insistence on my incompetence and relies on these insinuations by refusing to reference our actual claim related as it is to our papers.
You are incompetent, that is true. Your claims are contained in several places, you lie again when you claim that I have not referenced them, and your claims are bogus.
Quote
He has not even touched on the anomalies
You lie again. I have identified your "anomalies" and between us -- MH, .99, humbugger, and others-- we have explained them all.
Quote
and - as a for instance - uses one video to explain a waveform that can only match our own when he sets his function generator to an AC setting.
LIES again. I use EXACTLY the same FG settings as YOU YOURSELF do in the video that you now attempt to disavow. Liar.
Quote
He insults everyone's intelligence here by assuming that all members and readers alike  are that easily 'suckered' by his misrepresentations
You are the one making misrepresentations, Rosemary. You cannot refute a single point I've made with references and citations and evidence.
Quote
and then proceeds to boast that this so called consultation fee of his is costing someone - somewhere - a fee that includes the price of a Buick.
Wrong. I never said anything of the kind, you liar.
Quote
And if that level of unprofessionalism is not enough - he then proceeds to try and negotiate with my own legal representative behind my back? 
Liar. Eatenbyagrue has said that he represents no one- yet- and I have NEVER tried to negotiate with him about anything. Ask him yourself, liar. And writing an open letter to your imaginary attorney pointing him to some facts that YOU have posted yourself is not "negotiating", it's "informing". 
Quote
And this is the answer to my appeal to establish certain required parameters to test a circuit that not only merits but requires academic engagement.
Nobody is stopping you from testing. Nobody is stopping you from going back down to Professor Kahn's office at CPUT and asking for some "academics" to look at your pathology. NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU except YOU, Rosie poser.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 04, 2012, 07:33:48 AM
Howdy member and guests,

There's has always been a misconception here on Rosemary's "REAL" intentions using a FORUM as a personal BLOG site.

Rosemary has actually written a short manifesto of her hidden and subversive actions found at SCRIBD ( http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising ) and a expert on the usage of the subject. PLEASE NOTE the different screen name used of aetherevarising another one of the numerous screen names Rosemary has ....  :o

IF I WAS A TROLL - THE FIRST CHAPTER
"Written for the sincere student in the art of trolling"
( 33937867-IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL.pdf )

This is a very telling document showing the colorful insinuations made about herself .... and no one here disagrees that Rosemary is a "SUPER TROLL" with years of hands on experience.


FTC
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 07:35:21 AM
Ahhh... it feels so good to know that I can just put Tar Baby to bed, stuff it in a cardboard box and walk away, forget about it for another year or forever if I want to. But Rosemary CAN'T.... she can't let it go, it's her life, and she'll continue to do this ridiculous delusion and mass hysteria until she can't see to type any more.
And I'll be driving my old black Buick convertible down a peaceful beach road in Baja California, somewhere where they never heard of Rosemary Ainslie and her magic mosfets, heading for a hammock and a cool drink, secure in the knowledge that Conservation of Energy is still valid and my investments in Big Oil are continuing to pay off bigtime. And that psychopaths never learn or change their tune.

Go to bed now, old woman, and quit trying to seduce people with your lies and mistakes.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 07:46:16 AM


Howdy member and guests,

There's has always been a misconception here on Rosemary's "REAL" intentions using a FORUM as a personal BLOG site.

Rosemary has actually written a short manifesto of her hidden and subversive actions found at SCRIBD ( http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising (http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising) ) and a expert on the usage of the subject. PLEASE NOTE the different screen name used of aetherevarising another one of the numerous screen names Rosemary has ....  :o

IF I WAS A TROLL - THE FIRST CHAPTER
"Written for the sincere student in the art of trolling"
( 33937867-IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL.pdf )

This is a very telling document showing the colorful insinuations made about herself .... and no one here disagrees that Rosemary is a "SUPER TROLL" with years of hands on experience.


FTC
 :P

Ah, yes, Rosemary's description of the troll with super powers. It's amazing isn't it, how somebody who isn't even in the same COUNTRY and who only can interact over the internet, is SO POWERFUL that they can suppress the demonstration of Free Energy technology just by talking shite about it. It's all the fault of the damn skeptical trolls. Why, without them we'd have antigravity bicycles and free energy refrigerators that charge batteries, and cold fusion reactors in every basement, and maybe even have a cure for cancer by now. But the damn internet trolls !! How is anyone supposed to get anything done, when someone on the internet actually DISAGREES with you? Talk about a downer. I get so depressed when somebody disses my work that I just clam up totally, call a lawyer, and pout, since nobody can overcome the  power of the Evil Skeptical Internet Troll. Testing is impossible in such an environment, where trolls insist on actually seeing correct calculations and diagrams. How stupid, how repressive is that? No testing is possible as long as there is a single superpowerful internet troll anywhere; they must all be banned or sued or...even.... killed with one stone, along with that other bird. Otherwise, there is no way that it will be possible to assemble all those light bulbs and batteries.... there are more than I have fingers, so  I lose track of them..... and besides, the TROLLS distract me, I can't work with a troll breathing down my neck all the time, insisting that I calculate correctly.... it's just too much, I'm calling a lawyer. Ban those trolls immediately, or I'm going to stamp my foot and pout!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 04, 2012, 07:52:49 AM
The lighting is not too bad, and nobody but you has complained. In fact the videos have garnered many compliments; the "phase relationship" video alone has gotten nearly 200 views already. 
actually the lighting is terrible. suggestion: light it up. at least to the degree of rosemary's 'broomcloset'. ;)

the camera work could be easily bested by an 8 year old. suggestion: spend a buck for a tripod at the dollar store. this (along with decent lighting) will avoid the 'blair witch oscilloscope project' effect that your videos feature... or is that just your directing style? michael bay has his explosions and tinselkoala/alestalokin has his alcoholic tremors... ;) and learn what focus is.

other constructive criticisms: please think about writing a script. you say 'uhh' about 10 times a minute. is that part of your 'youtube guru persona'? is it your favorite word or is it the booze?

and finally, nearly 200 views? big deal ::) i got a couple magnet motor videos mirrored that have over ten times that amount of views.

p.s. $350 a day? LOLLING all over the floor! i get $125 a hour... you should think about a new line of work.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 10:15:34 AM
Guys

You see for yourselves the rather absurd reliance on popular opinion to argue science.  What is absolutely critical to TK's so called 'debunk' is a critical need to not reference the actual claim that is detailed in our papers.  You can guess why no doubt.  It's because our claim is measured and thoughtful and carefully presented.  He dare not let anyone know that unlike his own poor efforts, our work is commendably clear and commendably professional.

Which is also why he relies on that video.  I must admit that I thought it was taken off the write up in Sterling Allen's blog.  It seems, in fact, that they've rifled it from my own photobucket.  No surprises.  They've forced themselves in there many times in the past.  But just as a reminder.  That video  does not constitute our claim but merely demonstrates the co-incidence in numbers between two instruments.  Added to which he has not been able to correctly identify the displays on a sadly over exposed and incorrectly tabulated screen shot - in the hopes that you may all confuse him with some kind of consultative authority.  In one rather amusing example of this he presents the Tektronix as if it's the LeCroy and carefully edits out the boundaries of the instrument that you may confuse it with the LeCroy.  Trust me on this.  It's yet another shot of the Tektronix.

But such examples proliferate.  He claims to default the function generator to DC mode and the poor waveform then drifts to heights that if you were to calculate the energy then moving through those 'brown' transformers of his - it would, in all probability, nuke those body diodes in the MOSFETS.  Then too he keeps referring to 'mosfets' as he has no idea that it's an acronym.  This is very much in keeping with his sad and rather pretentious little references to 'latin' phrases which are invariably inappropriately applied.  He insinuates much.  Ever in the hopes that you will be confused that this is evidence of his knowledge.  And he nurses the rather fond requirement that he will not need to explain himself.  Which reminds me TK.  You have still not answered a very pertinent post by hoptoad.  We're all waiting.

If, indeed he presented his arguments clearly and concisely - no ambiguities - nothing left to question - then it would be deemed an affront to the bad science that he requires.  It's all pretension and nonsense.  On the one hand he tries to pretend that he's making a subtle point of some sort out of reach of common intelligence.  And then, on the other he insults us all by presuming to teach us Ohm's Law.  And when he's filled another half page with irrelevancies - allegations - innuendos - implications - he simply starts on the next half page.  Or Glen Lettenmaier - or MileHigh come in and fill that space.  And their contributions are equally as loaded with all the malice and slander that they can possibly manage - with the intention of dominating page after page of thread space in whichever threads they choose.  And he has the rather laughable audacity of pretending that he is somehow authorised, qualified - God knows what - to engage my own attorney and any attorney amongst the members here - to support his viewpoint - or alternatively to dispense with some free consultation.

It is grossly apparent that we are dealing here with an individual who is overqualified in the use of entirely unprofessional methodologies to diminish any claim of over unity - be it my own or be it LENR - or be it anything at all that promises anything at all.  He avers to personalities that would not engage in a discussion with him under any pretext at all - and requires that they 'confer' with him.  What is he thinking?  I am reasonably satisfied that no self-respecting professional would even engage with Glen Lettenmaier - let alone our tinselkoala - who manages to breach all common decencies with a flair and panache that would relegate him confined to the outer perimeters of any respectable institution, let alone  any respectable home.  And yet he seems to see justification in charging through these threads spreading chaos on confusion - as some kind of service to humanity.  God help us all.

I put it to you TINSELKOALA - that if you require a modicum of respect for anything at all - that you learn the courtesies that are required by common decencies, and that you apply good and clear argument as required by science.

Rosemary

Some grammar and some spelling
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 10:33:50 AM
And while I'm thinking about it.  Can you explain why you have not yet tested that apparatus that you claim is now identical to ours?   That is barring the fact that you're not using that element resistor that you paraded so threateningly?  Where is the definitive test?  Why is Glen Lettenmaier not showing us this on his little broadcast number?  Where is your schematic and detailed parts?  Where are your results?  What are you battery voltages?  How long did your test last?  Where are you scope probes showing the measurements.  What's the calibration of the scope?   Which function generator did you use?  Why are you claiming a DEBUNK without giving us the results? Must we just take your word for it?  When we all know how fast and loose is your commitment to your word?

With the utmost disregard,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 04, 2012, 11:13:24 AM
And while I'm thinking about it.  Can you explain why you have not yet tested that apparatus that you claim is now identical to ours?   That is barring the fact that you're not using that element resistor that you paraded so threateningly?  Where is the definitive test?  Why is Glen Lettenmaier not showing us this on his little broadcast number?  Where is your schematic and detailed parts?  Where are your results?  What are you battery voltages?  How long did your test last?  Where are you scope probes showing the measurements.  What's the calibration of the scope?   Which function generator did you use?  Why are you claiming a DEBUNK without giving us the results? Must we just take your word for it?  When we all know how fast and loose is your commitment to your word?

With the utmost disregard,
Rosie Pose

Well Rosemary Ann Ainslie, of Cape Town South Africa, home of the NERD RAT device with the "CLAIM" of a COP>INFINITY ( Greater Than Infinity ).  :o

The reason for not requesting a LIVE broadcast is "THERE WAS NO OR NONE OF A COP>INFINITY SHOWN IN THE TEST RESULTS" and I would estimate a COP<0 possibly from the testing and evaluation of the "TAR BABY CIRCUIT" device.  ;)

SO ..... Rosemary Ann Ainslie, of Cape Town South Africa, home of the NERD RAT device with the "CLAIM" of a COP>INFINITY ( Greater Than Infinity ) that's why .  ???

OK, Rosemary Ann Ainslie, of Cape Town South Africa, home of the NERD RAT device with the "CLAIM" of a COP>INFINITY ( Greater Than Infinity )  .... do you possibly understand .... nope ??  :o


FTC
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 02:51:03 PM
The reason for not requesting a LIVE broadcast is "THERE WAS NO OR NONE OF A COP>INFINITY SHOWN IN THE TEST RESULTS" and I would estimate a COP<0 possibly from the testing and evaluation of the "TAR BABY CIRCUIT" device.  ;)

And hello to you too Glen,

Perhaps you should explain to TK that you'd be delighted to allow him a live broadcast.  Perhaps he's just forgotten this.  I'm sure that many people would watch TK's performance of the Tar Baby with with riveted attention.  And we all know how badly you want to become a live broadcast star.  Sadly.  We also know that your little broadcast facility is sitting there rusting for want of attention.  I'm so sorry that no-one's using it.  I realise your hopes and dreams were in becoming a star of your own broadcast facility.  I'm afraid we can't ourselves take advantage of this.  Frankly I'd be frightened that you'd try and steal this COP Infinity circuit as comprehensively as you stole our paper on that open source replication with Scribd.  You remember that Glen?  Where you rather perjured yourself with Scribd authorities by claiming that this was exclusively your own work. That was naughty.  But far be it from me to moralise.

Just as a word of advice.  If you run out of words - when you try and explain yourself - just use a lot of colour.  And over use the 'bold function' on your computer.  And then, if your posts are still a little short for want of 'words' - don't worry.  Just repeat yourself.  Over and over.  And if that doesn't really fill enough space - just dip into your computer and select a host of links at random.  That may also make people think that your opinion is based on anything at all.  And that way our members will probably not notice if you're language skills are barely functional or not.

Don't be too hurt that my collaborator won't talk to you.  I know how he feels.  I only speak to you when needs must.

And while I'm at it.  May I remind you to either change your attorneys or get them to act in your best interests.  We're rather disappointed to see that we've still not heard from them.  I rather thought you had a class action suit against me.  You need to pull finger.  Or are none of them - that vast team of yours - actually taking you seriously enough?  :o   Why not offer to advertise them on your live broadcast number?  Maybe then they'll rally.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2012, 03:16:05 PM

Ah, yes, Rosemary's description of the troll with super powers. It's amazing isn't it, how somebody who isn't even in the same COUNTRY and who only can interact over the internet, is SO POWERFUL that they can suppress the demonstration of Free Energy technology just by talking shite about it. It's all the fault of the damn skeptical trolls. Why, without them we'd have antigravity bicycles and free energy refrigerators that charge batteries, and cold fusion reactors in every basement, and maybe even have a cure for cancer by now. But the damn internet trolls !! How is anyone supposed to get anything done, when someone on the internet actually DISAGREES with you? Talk about a downer. I get so depressed when somebody disses my work that I just clam up totally, call a lawyer, and pout, since nobody can overcome the  power of the Evil Skeptical Internet Troll. Testing is impossible in such an environment, where trolls insist on actually seeing correct calculations and diagrams. How stupid, how repressive is that? No testing is possible as long as there is a single superpowerful internet troll anywhere; they must all be banned or sued or...even.... killed with one stone, along with that other bird. Otherwise, there is no way that it will be possible to assemble all those light bulbs and batteries.... there are more than I have fingers, so  I lose track of them..... and besides, the TROLLS distract me, I can't work with a troll breathing down my neck all the time, insisting that I calculate correctly.... it's just too much, I'm calling a lawyer. Ban those trolls immediately, or I'm going to stamp my foot and pout!

You put it so well Tk.  And delighted to be reminded about that super troll exercise of mine.  You don't qualify as the super troll - you realise?  I hope?  Not in the same league.  You're way too clumsy.  The trick is to pretend to agree and then pretend to support all.  Then pull the rug at the last minute and pretend to be outraged.  You're a mere beginner.  Speak to Harvey .  He'll show you how it's done.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: The Boss on April 04, 2012, 04:34:28 PM
 
Mr Hartmann,
 
Where is the test ?
 
.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:39:58 PM
Everything you say is a lie, Rosemary. You cannot support any of it with facts and references. But I can support what I say with facts, references, and WITNESSES.

And while I'm thinking about it.  Can you explain why you have not yet tested that apparatus that you claim is now identical to ours?
You are lying. There is an entire thread and over 20 videos showing what you claim I have not showed. You LIE again.
Quote
   That is barring the fact that you're not using that element resistor that you paraded so threateningly?
Again you LIE. Take a look. I use the "element resistor" and several other loads as well. YOU LIE.
Quote
  Where is the definitive test?
I have offered time and time again to have TarBaby tested side by side with your NERD device, by the same methods, and analyzed the same way. YOU HAVE NOT.  I have done the dim bulb test. YOU HAVE NOT. AGAIN YOU LIE.
Quote
Why is Glen Lettenmaier not showing us this on his little broadcast number?
You'll have to ask  him. Why should he be concerned at all with what I do? Clearly, it is YOU who are worried about it. 
Quote
Where is your schematic and detailed parts?   
The schematic that I use is the SAME ONE YOU CLAIMED TO USE, once your stupid errors were discovered and corrected. It has been published alongside my testing SEVERAL TIMES. The parts are the SAME as yours, except for the batteries and the CLIPLEADS AND WHITE PEGBOARD. Again you lie. Or are you now claiming that one must have the exact "custom" load that you show, measuring exactly 11.11 ohms? You are pitiful in your grasping at straws. SHOW ME ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TARBABY AND NERD. You cannot.
Quote
Where are your results?
My results are more accessible and open to inspection and DUPLICATION than your results. My results are posted in detail and everyone except YOU knows where they are. YOU LIE.
Quote
  What are you battery voltages? 
Given in EVERY ONE of my videos where it is important. DISPLAYED ON MY OSCILLOSCOPE SCREEN if you only knew how to read one.
Quote
How long did your test last?
THERE IS A CLOCK SITTING IN FRON T OF THE BATTERIES IN THE DIM BULB TEST. Other tests lasting much longer are also documented with time-temperature-current data. Where is the corresponding data from YOU? It doesn't exist.
Quote
  Where are you scope probes showing the measurements. 
Now you are really grasping at straws. Let anyone reading here tell you: My probes are positioned on my circuit in the SAME PLACES that yours are on yours, and this is documented many times.
Quote
What's the calibration of the scope?
You don't know what that even means. On EVERY trace I show exactly where the zero baseline level is, what the timebase is, and what the channel settings and coupling is. YOU don't even know what those things mean.   
Quote
Which function generator did you use? 
Come on, fans, what function generator did I use? Why have I covered up this important fact? ROSEMARY, what FUNCTION GENERATOR DID YOU USE? An isotech 345? Orly?
Quote
Why are you claiming a DEBUNK without giving us the results? Must we just take your word for it?
You are lying again. Can you utter a single sentence without lying? I don't think so.
Quote
When we all know how fast and loose is your commitment to your word?
List an example where I have been "fast and loose" with a "commitment to my word." You cannot.
Quote

With the utmost disregard,
Rosie Pose


You lying hypocrite. GET ON WITH YOUR TESTING. Are you gonna let a mere TROLL stop you from saving the world? Or are you going to continue to wail and moan that the big old troll is preventing you from testing?

NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU, except for YOU, Rosemary, and really... we all knew all along that you never intended to perform any definitive test.

OTHERWISE..... why aren't you doing it? Are the trolls stopping you? Or is it something else that's stopping you?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 04:52:43 PM
Why was the second part of the VIDEO that you now claim isn't yours, why was that done with only four batteries instead of five?

I challenge you to repeat that second part of the video, where you are getting high heat in your load--- only this time use the full battery pack of 5 or better yet all 6 batteries.

Why was the battery pack reduced for that test? You and I both know the reason.

Let's see you do that test, using the exact same instrument settings, using 6 batteries.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 05:23:16 PM
Guys

You see for yourselves the rather absurd reliance on popular opinion to argue science.  What is absolutely critical to TK's so called 'debunk' is a critical need to not reference the actual claim that is detailed in our papers.  You can guess why no doubt.  It's because our claim is measured and thoughtful and carefully presented.  He dare not let anyone know that unlike his own poor efforts, our work is commendably clear and commendably professional.
No it is not. It is word salad of the worst kind, written by fools who have no idea how to present an experimental report.
Quote

Which is also why he relies on that video.  I must admit that I thought it was taken off the write up in Sterling Allen's blog.  It seems, in fact, that they've rifled it from my own photobucket.  No surprises.  They've forced themselves in there many times in the past.
THE VIDEO IS ON YOUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL, ms. doozydont. No "rifling" or forcing is required, it's up for public display just as you posted it back on the 22nd of March 2011, where it has been PUBLICLY AVAILABLE all this time.
Quote
But just as a reminder.  That video  does not constitute our claim but merely demonstrates the co-incidence in numbers between two instruments.
The video SAYS that is constitutes your claim. It reviews and demonstrates your claim, or tries to and fails, and it refers to the "papers" you keep citing. And of COURSE the two instruments are "coincident"... they are connected to the SAME POINTS in parallel. What a waste of scope power.
Quote
Added to which he has not been able to correctly identify the displays on a sadly over exposed and incorrectly tabulated screen shot - in the hopes that you may all confuse him with some kind of consultative authority.  In one rather amusing example of this he presents the Tektronix as if it's the LeCroy and carefully edits out the boundaries of the instrument that you may confuse it with the LeCroy.  Trust me on this.  It's yet another shot of the Tektronix.
Oh really? I have published 3 scope shots from that video,two from the TEK and one from the LeCroy, and all are identified. Which one is "carefully edited out", which one does not identify the scope correctly? If I've made an error SHOW ME so that I can correct it. 
Quote
But such examples proliferate.  He claims to default the function generator to DC mode and the poor waveform then drifts to heights that if you were to calculate the energy then moving through those 'brown' transformers of his - it would, in all probability, nuke those body diodes in the MOSFETS.
Are you here accusing me of fakery? Anyone can repeat what I've shown for themselves and confirm what I've shown. WHO CAN DO THE SAME FOR YOU?  Everyone who has tried has found out that YOUR CLAIMS ARE WRONG.
Quote
Then too he keeps referring to 'mosfets' as he has no idea that it's an acronym.
This is ridiculous and stupid. Would you prefer if I called them  "metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors"every time I mentioned them? Why don't YOU do this, then? Idiot troll.
Quote
This is very much in keeping with his sad and rather pretentious little references to 'latin' phrases which are invariably inappropriately applied.
example please. PER: this has been explained to you over and over, Miss Argumentum Ad Hominem.
Quote
He insinuates much.  Ever in the hopes that you will be confused that this is evidence of his knowledge.  And he nurses the rather fond requirement that he will not need to explain himself. 
Again you lie. My explanations are clear enough that an eighth-grader could understand them. An eighth-grader that took some math, that is. Sorry that you don't qualify.
Quote
Which reminds me TK.  You have still not answered a very pertinent post by hoptoad.  We're all waiting.
What pertinent post? I have always answered every coherent and relevant question that has been asked of me. WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS? In your "paper" ? What a joke.
Quote
If, indeed he presented his arguments clearly and concisely - no ambiguities - nothing left to question - then it would be deemed an affront to the bad science that he requires.  It's all pretension and nonsense.  On the one hand he tries to pretend that he's making a subtle point of some sort out of reach of common intelligence.  And then, on the other he insults us all by presuming to teach us Ohm's Law. 
You clearly need some remedial education since you make so many simple errors of math and logic. Where are my calculations in error? Where are YOURS in error?
Quote
And when he's filled another half page with irrelevancies - allegations - innuendos - implications - he simply starts on the next half page.   
All of the "irrelevancies" are coming from YOU Rosemary. Imagine how clean this thread would be if you stopped lying about me and Glen and MH and .99 and the rest of us. We could start talking about TESTING YOUR CIRCUIT..... but that is exactly why you are doing all this verbiage, to avoid TESTING.
Quote
Or Glen Lettenmaier - or MileHigh come in and fill that space.  And their contributions are equally as loaded with all the malice and slander that they can possibly manage - with the intention of dominating page after page of thread space in whichever threads they choose.  And he has the rather laughable audacity of pretending that he is somehow authorised, qualified - God knows what - to engage my own attorney and any attorney amongst the members here - to support his viewpoint - or alternatively to dispense with some free consultation.
By "engaging" do you mean pointing out facts that YOU are trying to cover up? So be it then.
Quote

It is grossly apparent that we are dealing here with an individual who is overqualified in the use of entirely unprofessional methodologies to diminish any claim of over unity - be it my own or be it LENR - or be it anything at all that promises anything at all.  He avers to personalities that would not engage in a discussion with him under any pretext at all - and requires that they 'confer' with him.  What is he thinking?  I am reasonably satisfied that no self-respecting professional would even engage with Glen Lettenmaier - let alone our tinselkoala - who manages to breach all common decencies with a flair and panache that would relegate him confined to the outer perimeters of any respectable institution, let alone  any respectable home.  And yet he seems to see justification in charging through these threads spreading chaos on confusion - as some kind of service to humanity.  God help us all.

I put it to you TINSELKOALA - that if you require a modicum of respect for anything at all - that you learn the courtesies that are required by common decencies, and that you apply good and clear argument as required by science.

Rosemary

Some grammar and some spelling

And I put it to you ROSEMARY AINS_LIE, that you are a hypocrite, a liar, and an ignorant fool, and I'd be glad to debate you in public in front of a bunch of your "academics" and let them decide who makes the more sense. You bring your device and I'll bring mine, and let's see if ANY instrumental measurement or calculation shows a significant difference between mine and yours. I will even YET AGAIN offer to send my device to any INDEPENDENT tester you like, as long as your device is sent too, for side-by-side testing using both YOUR procedures and calculations, and MINE. Or, alternatively, any test that the tester would like to perform, as long as BOTH devices are tested and compared.

WHY AREN'T YOU TESTING RIGHT NOW? Is there some problem, somebody holding you back?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 05:33:17 PM
Quote
Added to which he has not been able to correctly identify the displays on a sadly over exposed and incorrectly tabulated screen shot - in the hopes that you may all confuse him with some kind of consultative authority.  In one rather amusing example of this he presents the Tektronix as if it's the LeCroy and carefully edits out the boundaries of the instrument that you may confuse it with the LeCroy.  Trust me on this.  It's yet another shot of the Tektronix.

The two Tek screenshots that I have posted from the video and IDENTIFIED AS SUCH, and the one LeCroy shot posted, identified as such. Where has any "editing" or hiding of detail happened? Where is the corresponding explanation from AINSLIE about these salient points?
NOWHERE, that's where.

TRUST YOU on this? When it is plain and evident to anyone with eyeballs that you are LYING again?

(Note that at the very upper left corner of both the TEK shots, one can make out the blue "Tek" word. And in the LeCroy shot, in the bottom left corner one can see the words "LeCroy". Not very clever editing for someone who wanted to hide things, is it. Once again, Ainslie is DEMONSTRATED to be a liar.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 06:50:37 PM
And as to the claims of RA about my "debunking" and my own "claims"....

TinselKoala said,
Quote
Meanwhile, work continues, as I explain and demonstrate more features of the Tar Baby. Now, this is not a replication of the Ainslie NERD RAT device, is it. Even though it uses the same circuit diagram, the same component types and values, and makes the same oscillation and load heating (allowing for its lesser power, of course).... Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT device. You see, it's not on a white pegboard, so that disqualifies it totally.

Nevertheless, it performs exactly as that other device does, for some reason, and the various tests and demonstrations that I have shown here could just as well have been performed on that device..... and perhaps THEY SHOULD BE so performed, especially the drawdown test that I have illustrated, or the more complex ones that others have mentioned. But certainly.... if anyone is talking about claiming a prize, a monetary prize, their claims should be tested in a manner that would indeed hold up in a court of law.

My only claim about Tar Baby is that it performs just like the NERD RAT device in all significant respects. If they are allowed to analyze their data in the way that they have shown..... then so am I, and when that's done, Tar Baby is just as "overunity" as their device.  If I am required to perform a battery draw down test... then so are they.

Wait... I've already done that. Where is the NERD RAT test?

WHAT IS STOPPING ROSEMARY AINSLIE FROM PERFORMING AND SHOWING HER TESTS?

Certainly not I. The only one preventing Rosemary from performing and illustrating any test she likes is.... ROSEMARY HERSELF.

(And I'm not holding my breath waiting for Wilby's "replication" or testing of Ainslie's little farce, or even any refutation of the points I've made... because I know he won't be showing one... all he can do is be critical of the work of others, he cannot do any of his own. And amazingly, my JT video of my own work, not mirrored anywhere, has garnered over 180,000 views ( and less than 100,000 of those are from me looking.... ha ha). Too bad I'm not grubbing money through advertising... or I might be able to buy that Buick Rosemary is always talking about.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 07:07:54 PM
Over and over in my videos anyone can see and hear: I say "the F-43 is set to produce a negative-going pulse only..." and I show the knob setting, then I go to the scope and show its zero baseline, its timebase and vertical amp settings, and show the negative going squarewave pulse on the gate drive. Or, if I am using some other pulse like a POSITIVE OFFSET as she has done, I illustrate that and wiggle knobs so ANYONE who knows how to read an oscilloscope can see what I'm doing.

You are putting yourself in an untenable position with your lies, Rosemary, because MY results are repeatable by anyone with a scope, a signal generator, and a handful of metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors. I show enough detail in my demonstrations that ANYONE with the kit can duplicate what I show in a matter of minutes, without any "mistaken diagrams" or uninterpretable scope shots. Well-lit or not, steadycam or not, the detail is there and it's in the form of RAW, LIVE data that anyone can reproduce for themselves, not static scopeshots without explanation and bogus math. (Your "math trace" doesn't even account for the 0.25 Ohm CVR !!)

You are the one pleading for open-source replication and "confirmation" of your claims. Yet, EVERYONE who has ever worked with your circuit has eventually come to the same conclusion. You have NO supporters among anyone who has actually built and tested your device for themselves. Not Glen, not Harvey, not Ashtweth, not Aaron, nobody, not a single one. And you've turned on them and attacked them and their work just as you have attacked me. You won't show the simplest tests, you won't answer questions, you won't support your claims with references and reproducible data. Not even Donovan Martin will surface in your support.

The only way that you can even try to redeem yourself is to SHOW YOUR BATTERY DRAWDOWN TESTS. Nobody is hindering you or trying to suppress you in the least. JUST DO IT. What are you so afraid of? The truth is like soap: it only hurts if you are totally unused to it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on April 04, 2012, 07:20:11 PM
I have every intention of doing a battery draw down test.  I do not know whether I'll be able to conduct that test through this forum.  That's in Harti's hands.  And it's heavily dependent on certain editorial requirements related to this thread - and, indeed, to another thread here on this forum.

Rosie Posie

What is going on here, I thought we were going to see some new tests,Instead of the usual arguments that Rosemary seems to love having.
At least TK has done new tests and displayed his results for all to see.
Now it would appear from Rosemary's response that she is yet again moving the goalposts before she undertakes any new test.

Stefan can you clarify the situation on the tests that everyone is expecting from Rosemary,
or are we just going to continually have Rosemary attacking everyone and treating this forum like her blog

Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I am not opening this thread again because of the legal threat I received of
her lawyer, but maybe there will be coming some new evidence from these tests.

As I don´t like to be threaten by legal action I might pull the plug again, if this
thread goes nowhere again and close it again and make a backup as PDF and
post it in the Download archive and remove it from the forum completely.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 04, 2012, 07:28:38 PM
but that is exactly why you are doing all this verbiage, to avoid TESTING.
LOLLING all over the floor!  how many times have you posted on this page alone? 6 already. in point of fact your obsession with rosemary is the reason for all this "verbiage". and the "verbiage" is mostly yours. the record demonstrates this fact. from rose's response to hartiberlin (#1593) about the thread being reopened to her next post (reply #1610) there were 16 SIXTEEN posts by you, fuzzy, milehigh, ebag and powercat. 8 EIGHT of those were yours...  ::)

Are you here accusing me of fakery?
i am... and i am sure others are thinking it too tinselkoala/alsetalokin.

Everything you say is a lie, Rosemary.
you are a liar tinselkoala/alsetalokin.

everything she says is a lie? EVERYTHING? well then do what you claimed you can do. support what you say (and you say EVERYTHING rosemary says is a lie) with facts, references, and WITNESSES.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: The Boss on April 04, 2012, 08:03:28 PM
 
Where is the test ?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on April 04, 2012, 09:20:18 PM
LOLLING all over the floor!  how many times have you posted on this page alone? 6 already. in point of fact your obsession with rosemary is the reason for all this "verbiage". and the "verbiage" is mostly yours. the record demonstrates this fact. from rose's response to hartiberlin (#1593) about the thread being reopened to her next post (reply #1610) there were 16 SIXTEEN posts by you, fuzzy, milehigh, ebag and powercat. 8 EIGHT of those were yours...  ::)


Now, I am also a supporter of Rosemary, but I think there is no reason for this kind of talk.  These good men's purpose is noble.  Their goal is to validate Rosemary's findings so that she can legitimately claim the Overunity prize.  Without peer review and validation, I understand, it is difficult to conclusively establish things in the scientific community.

So you should not be so critical of Tinsel Koala's work.  He is furthering science and helping Rosemary by streamlining and ironing out any minor issues that might be present in her calculations.  And her has selflessly put in tireless hours into this open source project, with no hope of ever monetarily recouping any of his labor.

I think what you could do is help Rosemary by replicating her circuit and getting it to self run.  My understanding is that a self running device is best for this sort of thing, as it is easy to demonstrate energy creation that way.

As it appears you are a long standing Rosemary supporter and her work, do you have a working replication of her circuit?  I would be most anxious to see a successful replication of the Ainslie circuit.  What were you able to do that Mr. Koala and his compatriots missed?  I would attempt one myself, but I fear my learning curve on these electronics would be too steep.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 04, 2012, 11:34:23 PM
Howdy members and guests,

There seem to be a issue that Rosemary says the YouTube video up-loaded by "dooziedont" ( http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont?ob=0&feature=results_main ) isn't her and lays no claim to it or the content in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=player_embedded "Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 MARCH 2011"

This is very odd as Rosemary Ainslie posted it on her "BLOG" ..... Dark Energy New Science - By Rosemary Ainslie

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/dear-reader-finally-heres-our-video-on.html#links  :o


Who's trying to fool who here or lie to ?? :o

FTC
 :P

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 11:46:01 PM
Wilby, I looked back over those post counts; and it sure looks to me like every post I made, UNTIL rosemary started lying about me again, were to do directly with the topic of TESTING HER CIRCUIT. Her posts, you may note, have nothing to do with the topic. The very FIRST post after reopening is hers and is completely off topic.

And before you accuse me of fakery, you really should try for yourself what I show. If you can refute me with facts and experiments of your own, do so. But we all know you cannot. The issues of lighting and speech dysfluencies have nothing to do with the real issues: is there enough detail in my videos for one skilled in the art to do it for themselves? Yes, there is. In Rosemary's? No, there is not.

And-- as far as "alsetalokin" is concerned.... he ALWAYS told everyone that asked that his motor was NOT overunity in any way. Unfortunately everyone who tried to "replicate" it didn't believe him and tried to build some kind of overunity device that behaved like what he showed-- and of course they failed. If they simply had TAKEN HIM AT HIS WORD and instead tried to reproduce the effects in an UNDERUNITY or normal way.... they would have been much more successful. Why, according to the information I have, this "alsetalokin" character even SENT PARTS FROM THE MOTOR HE USED, as well as specifying the exact motor part number and manufacturer, to people like Harvey and others. There was never any secrecy around that device, just a bunch of people who couldn't believe the truth and instead tried to fulfill their OWN fantasies.  People like you, I think.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 11:51:48 PM
Thanks fuzzy, for the absolute proof that Ainslie is a liar with a poor memory to boot. But the internet never forgets.

The video was posted to YouTube on the 22nd of March 2011.  The video was mentioned by Rosemary and linked from Rosemary's own blog on the 22nd of March 2011.

And now she says she didn't post it, it has nothing to do with her claims, it was "rifled" from her photobucket account, etc.

Yes, Wilby, at this point it is safe to assume that EVERYTHING Rosemary says is a lie, until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 12:05:37 AM
Wilby, I looked back over those post counts; and it sure looks to me like every post I made, UNTIL rosemary started lying about me again, were to do directly with the topic of TESTING HER CIRCUIT. Her posts, you may note, have nothing to do with the topic. The very FIRST post after reopening is hers and is completely off topic.
irrelevant. the "verbiage" you spoke of is mostly yours. the record evidences this fact. your red herring is noted and rejected.

And before you accuse me of fakery, you really should try for yourself what I show. If you can refute me with facts and experiments of your own, do so. But we all know you cannot. The issues of lighting and speech dysfluencies have nothing to do with the real issues: is there enough detail in my videos for one skilled in the art to do it for themselves? Yes, there is. In Rosemary's? No, there is not.
more misrepresentation from you... you're a faker and a hoaxer due to the behavior of your alter-ego known as alsetalokin. LOLZ. the constructive criticisms i posted to you about your videos, after you brought up the topic, of course have nothing to do with anything other than noting your amateur videographer skills and suggesting ways for improvement. your claim that i have suggested or implied that such constructive criticisms have anything "to do with the real issues" is an obvious non sequitur... and complete falsehood. i challenge you present a quote of where i said such a thing.

is there enough detail in my videos for one skilled in the art to do it for themselves? Yes, there is. In Rosemary's? No, there is not.
LOLZ you and your gang of sycophants have used rose's videos (and the information contained therein) over and over in various hypothetical explanations for the opertaion of the circuit. your 'tarbaby' non-replicaton uses data gleaned from her videos. so, either you are not skilled in the art or there is enough information in rosemary's videos... or you are just a liar.

And-- as far as "alsetalokin" is concerned.... he ALWAYS told everyone that asked that his motor was NOT overunity in any way. Unfortunately everyone who tried to "replicate" it didn't believe him and tried to build some kind of overunity device that behaved like what he showed-- and of course they failed. If they simply had TAKEN HIM AT HIS WORD and instead tried to reproduce the effects in an UNDERUNITY or normal way.... they would have been much more successful. Why, according to the information I have, this "alsetalokin" character even SENT PARTS FROM THE MOTOR HE USED, as well as specifying the exact motor part number and manufacturer, to people like Harvey and others. There was never any secrecy around that device, just a bunch of people who couldn't believe the truth and instead tried to fulfill their OWN fantasies.  People like you, I think.
as far as alsetalokin is concerned... alsetalokin is you. and -- for you to pretend otherwise is juvenile.

Yes, Wilby, at this point it is safe to assume that EVERYTHING Rosemary says is a lie, until proven otherwise.
your assumptions hold no weight with me. i thought you said you could support what you said (and you said EVERYTHING rosemary says is a lie) with facts, references, and WITNESSES. that was obviously just more of your lies...


@ebag... i don't care what you 'think'.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on April 05, 2012, 12:26:05 AM
@wilbyinebriated
In all the time that I have known you on this forum You spend most of your time attacking people,
if anyone doesn't believe me then just look back at all his previous post and see for yourself.
 
If you really want to support Rosemary them why don't you show us all your working circuit and prove her claim is true.
 
Don't bother,we all know you just attack attack,that's all you seem to do,what a shame
when you first joined this forum you seemed genuinely interested in trying to find the answers to free energy and now you just seem to want to fight with everyone
   
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 12:37:57 AM
But the internet never forgets.
yeah. you know that better than anyone don't you. now where is that public mea culpa you owe me about the mosfet perfomance?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 05, 2012, 12:51:02 AM
Just a little update to the circuit diagram.  Rosemary has alleged that the diagram below is a "gross misrepresentation" without backing up her claim.

I stand by this diagram and will state that I believe it to be correct.  I am challenging Rosemary to explain how the diagram is allegedly a "gross misrepresentation."

Again:  In negatively offset oscillation mode all of the NERD team's DSO measurements are junk - they are garbage data.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on April 05, 2012, 01:20:22 AM
@ebag... i don't care what you 'think'.


I think I get it now.  You are a troll.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 01:27:26 AM
Thanks fuzzy, for the absolute proof that Ainslie is a liar with a poor memory to boot. But the internet never forgets.

The video was posted to YouTube on the 22nd of March 2011.  The video was mentioned by Rosemary and linked from Rosemary's own blog on the 22nd of March 2011.

And now she says she didn't post it, it has nothing to do with her claims, it was "rifled" from her photobucket account, etc.

Yes, Wilby, at this point it is safe to assume that EVERYTHING Rosemary says is a lie, until proven otherwise.

Hi Tk,

Not only did Rosemary forget the BLOG posting of hers ...... There's a nice and clear posting here at OU   :o

Rosemary's Quote -
Quote
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278833/#msg278833    Reply #210 on: March 22, 2011, 05:19:17 AM

Guys, finally the video.  Apologies for the delays.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

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



Looks like "STRIKE THREE"  !!!!

FTC
 ;)
   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 01:37:58 AM
I think I get it now.
no. you obviously don't. you don't think i should point out the fact that most of the "verbiage" is tinselkoala/alsetalokin's doing. and/or the reason for his "verbiage" is his obsession with rosemary. if you have a problem with people pointing out the facts of a matter under discussion then i care not what you think...

You are a troll.
typical lawyer... engaging in fallacious rhetoric instead of logic.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: eatenbyagrue on April 05, 2012, 01:49:16 AM
typical lawyer... engaging in fallacious rhetoric instead of logic.

Nah, I just used evidence.  Taking a suggestion, I looked at your post history.  For the most part, you just pick fights with people for no apparent goal except to fight.  By that I mean that it is not even clear that you are disagreeing with the thrust of the person's post, you will just go on any tangent looking for conflict.

I suggest you stick to whatever your $125 per hour pissant job is.  Those are slave wages in my book.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 02:04:55 AM
Nah, I just used evidence.  Taking a suggestion, I looked at your post history.  For the most part, you just pick fights with people for no apparent goal except to fight.  By that I mean that it is not even clear that you are disagreeing with the thrust of the person's post, you will just go on any tangent looking for conflict.
nice strawman. ::) no. you did not. your whole post to me was nothing more than a hodgepodge of logical fallacies... go count the number of posts by tinselkoala/alsetalokin since the thread has been re-opened and compare those to the amount by rosemary. see who the blame for the "verbiage" falls upon as evidenced by the record. but then facts about that matter don't really concern you do they counselor? tinselkoala/alsetalokin can make whatever sweeping generalizations he chooses to and engage in gross hyperbole along with all your favorite logical fallacies... and never mind the facts.

I suggest you stick to whatever your $125 per hour pissant job is.  Those are slave wages in my book.
no. they are not. you are no lawyer. that much is obvious.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 02:13:49 AM
Just a little update to the circuit diagram.  Rosemary has alleged that the diagram below is a "gross misrepresentation" without backing up her claim.
I stand by this diagram and will state that I believe it to be correct.  I am challenging Rosemary to explain how the diagram is allegedly a "gross misrepresentation."
Again:  In negatively offset oscillation mode all of the NERD team's DSO measurements are junk - they are garbage data.
Hello MileHigh

I assure you that this circuit represents a gross misrepresentation of the NERD circuit that supports our claim.  But I realise why you rely on it. I just hope that everyone else does.  If you want to refer to the correct circuit then refer to our paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 05, 2012, 02:35:32 AM
Rosemary:

Quote
I assure you that this circuit represents a gross misrepresentation of the NERD circuit that supports our claim.  But I realise why you rely on it. I just hope that everyone else does.  If you want to refer to the correct circuit then refer to our paper.

To the best of my recollection you are completely incorrect.   What I seem to recall is that the circuit diagram presented in your paper is itself a gross misrepresentation.  That because you believed that your accidental miswiring of the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs was "something special" and you wanted to keep that a "secret."

Then Poynt carefully watched your clip and reverse-engineered the circuit and discovered that you were not showing the correct diagram in your paper and as a result the "secret was revealed."  You then confessed and admitted that the diagram in your paper was false.

That is the reason why Poynt drew up a new diagram to properly reflect the actual circuit that you tested for the paper and for your demo video clip.

That is the reason when Poynt made that circuit diagram he put a label on the current sensing resistor that stated, "Position of the CSR as per the "as-built" apparatus shown in the demonstration video."

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  Rosemary, I don't believe you could possibly forget this big event that transpired within a few weeks of your releasing the paper and the associated video.  Will you please come back to reality and at least show some integrity?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 03:04:00 AM
Guys

I was going to take the trouble to answer these posts.  It's too tediously repetitive and frankly I haven't got the stomach.  I have FINALLY seen that the video was indeed available.  Sadly.  Equally sadly it was the ONLY thing that TK would use as he knows it referenced the wrong circuit.  And he was relying on exposing that fact.  I was also wrong about that tektronix reference.  I see that now.  I couldn't work out how he showed the shunt trace without the negative voltage - but I get it.  The example was related to the point we stressed in the second test of the first part of our 2 part paper where the integrated values show a negative wattage notwithstanding the positive sum of the voltages across the shunt.

I will not be able to encourage any academic to engage while TK is allowed to post on my thread.  They will not want their involvement associated with that level of engagement.  He is ill mannered and utterly unprofessional.  His science is appalling and his arguments represented with such a dire want of clarity that it is impossible to understand let alone refute.  And he relies on this - somewhat transparently.  And that's not even mentioning the rather sad and persistent claims by Glen Lettenmaier who is still clinging on for dear life to the hope that he can claim his replication as his own independent discovery.  TK's engagement here is most certainly funded - eatenbyagrue.  He is required to prevent this test reaching its fruition.  I will not engage in that definitive test without the full endorsement of the results and the applied protocols.  That will, inevitably require the involvement of academics.  TK's mission here was to ensure that they would never engage.  If you are inclined to believe it's anything else than I've grossly overestimated your perspicacity.  He has presented this thread address with an embarrassment of riches in slander and invective.  And such is hardly the grounds for academic involvement.  He's well aware of that.  And it appears that Harti is not about to apply the required editing or moderation to correct this.

And that you describe his and Glen's motives as 'good' and 'ultruistic' and 'self funded' - is further proof to me that even you are fooled.  And therefore this mission is not likely to succeed.  Which is a shame.  Because it's actually public interest that is being compromised. 

Regards,
Rosemary 

 


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 03:36:36 AM
And guys, just as a reminder.

TK has been very careful to NOT reference our actual claim as detailed in our papers that Poynty made available to us all.  Instead he must have done some extensive search to find any evidence of that film on our demonstration - and then made THAT the theme of his so called 'debunk' - where - to date he as STILL not shown us his results. 

Our claim is wholly and entirely associated with our paper and NOTHING ELSE.  And when and if TK engages on a discussion of that and on the replication of those tests - then INDEED he may be able to assert that he's replicated anything at all.  He is on record here as dismissing our papers as a 'word salad' - which contradicts the rather meritorious assessment from more than one highly esteemed academic who commended it for it's clarity.  Perhaps TK prefers it that we present our proof with the entire want of clarity associated with his so called 'debunk' where he has not even given us a comprehensive report of any kind but rather a mishmash of badly filmed nonsense that imply and infer and suggest - all.  Which is in defiance of good science and good experimental practice. Hardly a 'standard' to be emulated.

So.  Go figger.  Why did he need to rustle through the internet to find any extant evidence of that video?  When the papers that describe our claim are so freely available?  One does not need Einstein's intellect to work that one out.

Regards again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 03:48:23 AM
And eatenbyagrue,

Just look again at Wilby's contributions.  The guy has NEVER come out in support of our claims.  What Wilby manages with unerring exactitude is to point out when posters get rather carried away with bombast or with patent and willful misrepresentations.  And he does this with remarkable skill.  Frankly his contributions are gold.  And he does not 'side' with anyone or 'anything' at all.  He simply tries to keep the record straight.  And that certainly does not make him a troll.  But again -  for the record - he does NOT side with me or with you or with anyone at all.  So why then should he replicate? 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 05, 2012, 04:01:29 AM
I think the "guys" are pretty much a figment of your imagination at this point in time Rosemary.  Seriously, it's become like one of those "world's thinnest books" jokes.

Anyone that is reasonably astute in electronics and has had some time to quality your circuit and you yourself in terms of your level of electronics knowledge and personality idiosyncrasies recognizes this for the ongoing farce it has been for a long time.

TK on the payroll to prevent your circuit from "going public?"  That merits a LOL.  There are 93,000 reads of this thread alone.  Such bondage!  If you only understood how you would be received outside the forum bubble Rosemary.  You claim academics have endorsed your paper?  You have to be either kidding or deluded or they were referred to you by Sterling Allen.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 04:07:35 AM
And guys, just as a reminder.

TK has been very careful to NOT reference our actual claim as detailed in our papers that Poynty made available to us all.  Instead he must have done some extensive search to find any evidence of that film on our demonstration - and then made THAT the theme of his so called 'debunk' - where - to date he as STILL not shown us his results. 

Our claim is wholly and entirely associated with our paper and NOTHING ELSE.  And when and if TK engages on a discussion of that and on the replication of those tests - then INDEED he may be able to assert that he's replicated anything at all.  He is on record here as dismissing our papers as a 'word salad' - which contradicts the rather meritorious assessment from more than one highly esteemed academic who commended it for it's clarity.  Perhaps TK prefers it that we present our proof with the entire want of clarity associated with his so called 'debunk' where he has not even given us a comprehensive report of any kind but rather a mishmash of badly filmed nonsense that imply and infer and suggest - all.  Which is in defiance of good science and good experimental practice. Hardly a 'standard' to be emulated.

So.  Go figger.  Why did he need to rustle through the internet to find any extant evidence of that video?  When the papers that describe our claim are so freely available?  One does not need Einstein's intellect to work that one out.

Regards again,
Rosemary

Rosemary .....

Please see your own very own posting .....

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271)            Reply #124 on: March 18, 2011, 10:56:29 AM

And see the device image you downloaded ..... "WITH A SINGLE MOSFET "NOT" FIVE (5)" as shown in your YouTube video dated 12 MARCH 2011 for the COP>INFINITY demonstration.


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/ (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/)     ( th_DSC00173-1.jpg )


Therefore SCOPE SHOTS and DATA DUMPS for your papers used for possible publishing in a accredited journal or magazine have mixed up device schematics ie: device schematic - one (1) mosfet, Q1 x5 (five) mosfets, Q1/ Q2-Q4 (five) mosfets .....

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus    ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )

Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #4    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #5    dated 02/09/11    500us    49.5v    (4 battery)
Fig #8    dated 02/16/11    500us    74.1v    (6 battery)

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure   ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )

Fig #2    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #8    dated 03/02/11    2us    62.9v    (5 battery)


Everything is mixed up in your papers, the complete compiled data for each paper ( device schematic ) isn't any good. CHECK ALL THE DATES !!  :o


FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 04:30:27 AM
And guys,

Just take a good long look at this schematic.  You'll notice that it's been very well presented.  It takes some amount of work to manage this.  And then notice too that it is NOT our own schematic.  I assure you all that there is no part of this that has any reference whatsoever to our own NERD schematic in our paper.

So I ask you?  What actually motivates so much hard work - to misrepresent our circuit?  I put it to you that our claim is likely to threaten the established order of things with much more force than our energy suppliers require.  And unlike cold fusion - we have the thesis that supports our evidence.  That is the point at which our results represent a real danger to them.

Regards again
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 04:43:05 AM
Rosemary .....

Please see your own very own posting .....


My dear Glen Lettenmaier
It seems that you are fixated on this and still struggling with those intellectual constraints of yours.  I'll try and keep my language simple.  Then you'll be able to understand.  I hope.  Our first generation circuit produced COP>17.  Your replication of this produced COP>6. Our early intention in the references you make was to replicate our own COP>17.  Which we did.  Then we decided to test this on higher wattage outputs.  Therefore we intended to parallel our MOSFET's (not mosfets you note TK?).  I personally and wholly and completely misapplied that paralleling and through God's good Grace, found an entirely new waveform that resulted in COP Infinity.

I am sure that you would prefer it that we did not.  Because then you would be able to argue your 'discovery' more convincingly.  But there you go.  Experiments change - discoveries move on - life takes over - and behind it all will the forgotten efforts of yours to take ownership of this circuit.  Just live with it.

But while I may have your attention.  Where are those interdicts applied by your team of attorneys - as they work towards that class action that you promised us?

Rosie Pose

ADDED
And may I impose on you when you answer - to simply apply some full sentences in a verbal explanation.  Your reliance on 'links' is getting tedious and your need to fill the page with these sad protests - is somewhat transparent.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 04:58:09 AM
I think the "guys" are pretty much a figment of your imagination at this point in time Rosemary.  Seriously, it's become like one of those "world's thinnest books" jokes.

Anyone that is reasonably astute in electronics and has had some time to quality your circuit and you yourself in terms of your level of electronics knowledge and personality idiosyncrasies recognizes this for the ongoing farce it has been for a long time.

TK on the payroll to prevent your circuit from "going public?"  That merits a LOL.  There are 93,000 reads of this thread alone.  Such bondage!  If you only understood how you would be received outside the forum bubble Rosemary.  You claim academics have endorsed your paper?  You have to be either kidding or deluded or they were referred to you by Sterling Allen.

Hello MileHigh

I assure you that we have a level of support that is both surprising and welcome.  The only joke is the transparent efforts by you and TK to detract from this technology.  And my personal knowledge is more than sufficient for the purposes of explaining every aspect of this rather simple circuit which is detailed in the second part of our two part paper.  Your skills - unhappily - are not equal to this apparently.  As you have NOT been able to explain that positive half of each waveform during the period that the battery is disconnected.

Kindest regards MileHigh - you've need of it.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 05:00:56 AM

@ Fuzzy.... now would be a great time to post your email from Professor Kahn, the academic who allowed Rosemary some broomcloset space for her experimentation. He has some interesting things to say about her and Donovan Martin, IIRC.

Better be careful, though.... Rosemary is cornered and she will strike out and claw and spit like a wild animal. It's already starting. Even when she finally ADMITS about the video, the scope shots, all of that stuff that she lied and argued about for days..... even when her face is rubbed directly in the proof of her lies, she will still manage to turn and twist it. You see... it is OUR fault that that video exists and was used as information.  SHE never tried to cover anything up or silence any discussion, did she now.


@ MileHigh... the reason she's balking at the circuit now is that 1) it explicitly includes that gate capacitance, and she has no clue about capacitors or capacitance, she probably thinks you mean an extra component or something,  and 2) that's the circuit I BUILT and that's the circuit DEMONSTRATED in the video, and she knows that there are problems with the video and the performance. I could tell her the sky is blue and overhead, and she'd claim it was green and underfoot, just because I said it.

But there's another important issue that I identified: what about that 48-volt battery pack for the second part of the Demo Video that Rosemary posted? Why was one 12-volt battery pulled out of the stack for that part of the demo? And a related question: What is the absolute maximum drain current of a single IRFPG50 power HEXfet metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor?

She's not going to test, friends. We have known that from the beginning. My presence or absence has nothing to do with the matter. You can see her wiggling around and making impossible conditions from the very beginning, well before I arrived here. Just watch....

And another thing she's not going to do: she won't say just how Tar Baby is different from her device. And of course, the corollary to that is that she will continue lying about me and my work. Have I presented results? Of course I have, nearly fifteen pages of results and discussion of them, along with 20 or so YT videos including the DIM BULB TEST. So how is she able to claim that I haven't? It is because she is wilfully ignorant, arrogant, and NEVER INTENDS TO TEST her batteries at all, so she wants to divert attention from HER AND HER CIRCUIT to anything else.

TEST YOUR BATTERIES, Ainslie. Or just continue lying and bloviating, I don't really care. The video lies and the scopeshot lies were enough for me; that little episode shows your true colors completely. You are a fraud.  Now you are lying about "academics" praising your "paper". Let's see a statement from one, supporting that claim. Where is Donovan Martin, even?
Your "papers" wouldn't pass muster at a tenth-grade science fair. You simply do not know how to report experimental results, and you actually insult your audience by asking them seriously to consider your claims based on those papers.

How many of my statements about Ainslie and her circuit and demo and scope shots have been utterly borne out? The energy calculation BS... that took WEEKS before she finally admitted she was wrong and I was right, and she STILL hasn't retracted the bogus conclusion based on the bad math. Skipping over many...we come to the VIDEO. After so many firm denials and shouts and more lies, she finally is FORCED to admit and acknowledge that the video is hers, it is official, and she posted it. The SCOPESHOTS that I published and analyzed and that she so blatantly lied about... until once again her nose was rubbed in the incontrovertible proof that I was right and she was wrong. And it goes on and on. Examine every one of the claims she's made about me and TarBaby testing and you, dear reader, will see that I am right and she is wrong. She has been unable to refute me with facts and references A SINGLE TIME.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 05:08:17 AM
Quote
parallel our MOSFET's (not mosfets you note TK?).
Yes, I note your "grocer's apostrophe", certainly. What language do you speak, anyway? Certainly not English.
Am I in terrible error when I refer to those things as mosfets instead of MOSFET's (sic)?
 
I laugh in your oxtail soup, idiot.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 05:18:14 AM

@ Fuzzy.... now would be a great time to post your email from Professor Kahn, the academic who allowed Rosemary some broomcloset space for her experimentation. He has some interesting things to say about her and Donovan Martin, IIRC.

Better be careful, though.... Rosemary is cornered and she will strike out and claw and spit like a wild animal. It's already starting. Even when she finally ADMITS about the video, the scope shots, all of that stuff that she lied and argued about for days..... even when her face is rubbed directly in the proof of her lies, she will still manage to turn and twist it. You see... it is OUR fault that that video exists and was used as information.  SHE never tried to cover anything up or silence any discussion, did she now.


Hi Tk,

Did You mean this one here .....

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Mohamed Toriq Kahn <KhanT@cput.ac.za>
To: Glen Lettenmaier <fuzzytomcat@yahoo.com>
Cc: Deon Kallis <KallisD@cput.ac.za>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 3:00:23 AM
Subject: Re: Joint Lab with Rosemary Ainslie

The lady asked to test their system (I still don't know what exactly),
in my Lab and to have some Lab space. I get usually about a dozen and a
half crackpots a year coming up with a "free energy discovery", and
entertain some to see if there is perhaps merit in their "discovery"
that just don't have the correct explanation. I have helped and
supported several small companies in the past quite successfully when
the idea was sound and truly had commercial potential. I even won the
SMME Department of Trade and Industry Award for 2009, for my efforts in
this regard. However she gave me a paper, and that dusted my lab and
that was the last I've seen of her two weeks ago. I did not look at the
websites you sent me as I simply don't have the time to run around with
such matters. I would say that if my name is used and any webpostings
appear from this lady or Donovan, that does not have my express
permission or approval, then it would be done fraudulently. I received
no prior notification from them that this would be done. I expected them
to at least show me what they intended to publish, or allow me to
publish it myself, if I had any agreement on what they claimed. Any
claims to the contrary is baseless and without my permission and I
distance myself from it.


Professor Dr Mohamed Tariq Kahn
Head: Centre for Distributed Power & Electronic Systems
Faculty of Engineering
Cape Peninsula University of Technology

( Dr_Kahn_01.pdf )


FTC
 ;)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 05:21:21 AM
My dear TK

When you have finally managed to both test and debunk any claim at all that relates to our paper then I assure you you will have my full attention.  Until then it seems that you can do nothing but repeat the entirely unprofessional menaces that are your stock in trade.  They do not merit an answer. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 05:31:39 AM
Hi Tk,

Did You mean this one here .....

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Mohamed Toriq Kahn <KhanT@cput.ac.za>
To: Glen Lettenmaier <fuzzytomcat@yahoo.com>
Cc: Deon Kallis <KallisD@cput.ac.za>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 3:00:23 AM
Subject: Re: Joint Lab with Rosemary Ainslie

The lady asked to test their system (I still don't know what exactly),
in my Lab and to have some Lab space. I get usually about a dozen and a
half crackpots a year coming up with a "free energy discovery", and
entertain some to see if there is perhaps merit in their "discovery"
that just don't have the correct explanation. I have helped and
supported several small companies in the past quite successfully when
the idea was sound and truly had commercial potential. I even won the
SMME Department of Trade and Industry Award for 2009, for my efforts in
this regard. However she gave me a paper, and that dusted my lab and
that was the last I've seen of her two weeks ago. I did not look at the
websites you sent me as I simply don't have the time to run around with
such matters. I would say that if my name is used and any webpostings
appear from this lady or Donovan, that does not have my express
permission or approval, then it would be done fraudulently. I received
no prior notification from them that this would be done. I expected them
to at least show me what they intended to publish, or allow me to
publish it myself, if I had any agreement on what they claimed. Any
claims to the contrary is baseless and without my permission and I
distance myself from it.


Professor Dr Mohamed Tariq Kahn
Head: Centre for Distributed Power & Electronic Systems
Faculty of Engineering
Cape Peninsula University of Technology

( Dr_Kahn_01.pdf )


FTC
 ;)

This letter to you Glen Lettenmaier is dated May 13th 2010.  It was solicited on the advices from you that you were a MODERATOR at Energetic forum.  Your expressed concern was that Rosemary Ainslie et al were stealing your technology.  It is the second time you have breached email confidentiality by making this available.  Could you perhaps try and solicit an updated reply?  I suspect that the good Professor will know better than to even answer you.  Our work at this institution continued for more than a year thereafter.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 05:40:06 AM
Yes, I note your "grocer's apostrophe", certainly. What language do you speak, anyway? Certainly not English.
Am I in terrible error when I refer to those things as mosfets instead of MOSFET's (sic)?
 
I laugh in your oxtail soup, idiot.

I imagine you would TK.  And the language that I both speak and write is English.  And that with a reasonable level of competence.  And one should never write mosfet if one wants to pretend to be familiar with science terms.  Any more than one should write COP>INFINITY which you CLAIM that I write. But I'm glad that you're entertained by thoughts about oxtail.  And Oxtail is not normally described as 'idiot' - but then again.  I suppose given the artistic license that you assume in all your science 'dissertations' - 20 pages golly - then I suppose it's fair comment.   Where are those 20 pages?  I'd be interested to see them.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 05:48:20 AM
OOps... where did this scope shot come from, I wonder.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 05:54:30 AM
This letter to you Glen Lettenmaier is dated May 13th 2010.  It was solicited on the advices from you that you were a MODERATOR at Energetic forum.  Your expressed concern was that Rosemary Ainslie et al were stealing your technology.  It is the second time you have breached email confidentiality by making this available.  Could you perhaps try and solicit an updated reply?  I suspect that the good Professor will know better than to even answer you.  Our work at this institution continued for more than a year thereafter.

Rosie Posie

Howdy reading members and guests,

This has already been discussed in this thread earlier ..... she must have missed this one also as she conveniently sees, reads and responds to whatever her whim is at the time. 

Just another Rosemary Ann Ainslie distraction from the repeated requested re-testing of her COP>INFINITY device with a 555 timer and no function generator and a battery draw down test .... all to be documented, video taped and 100% verifiable ....

NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS will anyone see this ...... COP>INFINITY ??? From Rosemary ..... hahahahahahahahahahahhahaha  ;D to funny !!!!


http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316012/#msg316012    Reply #1244 on: March 19, 2012, 01:41:48 PM
Quote
Guests and Members

Some of the most damning slanderous unfounded accusations from Rosemary against me is about her "SCRIBD" paper and my THEFT and REMOVAL of her "SCRIBD" document.

"OUR" REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF ROSEMARY"S "SCRIBD" DOCUMENT -

1) The document Rosemary filed at SCRIBD was water marked "FOR PEER REVIEW" from the IEEE and with the entire REMOVAL of all AUTHORS names on the document.

2) The visit from Rosemary to Professor DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn  (Head) Centre for Distributed Power & Electronic Systems Faculty of Engineering "Cape Peninsula University of Technology

    (CUPT) with her "SCRIBD" document water marked "FOR PEER REVIEW" without any AUTHORS names on it giving a COPY to DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn , as SOLELY her own work. 


Please find attached 100% verifiable e-mail correspondence -

1) Complete set of "SCRIBD" e-mails transcripts - ( Scribd_07-10_02.pdf / Scribd_07-10_03.pdf )
   
2) Inquiry responce from Professor DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn ( CUPT ) - ( Dr_Kahn_01.pdf )




FTC
:P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 05:57:18 AM
OOps... where did this scope shot come from, I wonder.

You ASK?  You found it after an extensive search because you are rather reluctant to reference our official claim - detailed as it is in our paper.  Our claim is ONLY associated with our paper.  NOT with that video.  Surely you know that?  Or has this fact entirely eluded you TK?  In which case it seems that your language competence is as compromised as Glen Lettenmaier's.  I'll see if I can use simple words in future.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 06:05:56 AM
My dear Glen Lettnemaier

You are the only person I know who links to a link and then posts the content of that link nonetheless.  May I impose on you to try and solicit an updated response from that good Professor.  And then may I also impose on you to publish the letter that you wrote to solicit that response from the good Professor.  That would give a fuller picture.  And then.  When you can manage it - try and understand this.  We KNOW why you need to posts all those links.  It is because you cannot write a coherent sentence.  But there's another way around this problem.  Just don't post.  That way we can all pretend that you know how to write - but choose not to,

Rosie Pose

and by the way.  Why are we STILL not in receipt of an interdict from your teams of attorneys?  Frankly I'm getting rather impatient.  I'm sure they're capable of detailing your complaints related to our theft of your work - even if you're not.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 06:17:23 AM
My dear Glen Lettnemaier

You are the only person I know who links to a link and then posts the content of that link nonetheless.  May I impose on you to try and solicit an updated response from that good Professor.  And then may I also impose on you to publish the letter that you wrote to solicit that response from the good Professor.  That would give a fuller picture.  And then.  When you can manage it - try and understand this.  We KNOW why you need to posts all those links.  It is because you cannot write a coherent sentence.  But there's another way around this problem.  Just don't post.  That way we can all pretend that you know how to write - but choose not to,

Rosie Pose

You cant even spell my name right  :P as to asking me to do anything for you .... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .... do it your self "SUPER TROLL" your in such great terms with CUPT !!!

Anyway you and your attorneys can read all about it here, with all the rest of your BS .... http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/scamsshams.html (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/scamsshams.html)   ( when I'm done )

FTC
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 06:23:39 AM
You cant even spell my name right  :P as to asking me to do anything for you .... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .... do it your self "SUPER TROLL" your in such great terms with CUPT !!!

Anyway you and your attorneys can read all about it here, with all the rest of your BS .... http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/scamsshams.html (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/scamsshams.html)   ( when I'm done )

FTC
 :P

I am NOT super troll.  But it does seem that I'm at least able to fight you trolls.  Not sure that I'll win.  But I'll put up some kind of resistance while I'm still breathing.

Delighted to see that you're preparing yet another link.  And equally pleased to see that you're amused - even if it's not entirely convincing.

Rosie Pose

sorry.  Have I not spelled your name correctly?  I thought it was Glen Lettenmaier?  I'll check it out and do better in future.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 06:43:59 AM
I am NOT super troll.  But it does seem that I'm at least able to fight you trolls.  Not sure that I'll win.  But I'll put up some kind of resistance while I'm still breathing.

Delighted to see that you're preparing yet another link.  And equally pleased to see that you're amused - even if it's not entirely convincing.

Rosie Pose

sorry.  Have I not spelled your name correctly?  I thought it was Glen Lettenmaier?  I'll check it out and do better in future.

That link has always been there .... understandable as my web site looks for fraudulent claims, and you would stay away as far as possible ..... OH YA !!! ..... you refused to show your COP>INFINITY device there at my site , to bad to sad for you!  ???

You can have a preview of my legal notes - Open Source Research and Development Web Site Agreement  http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/Contact.html

Cheers
 ;)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 09:01:25 AM
That link has always been there .... understandable as my web site looks for fraudulent claims, and you would stay away as far as possible ..... OH YA !!! ..... you refused to show your COP>INFINITY device there at my site , to bad to sad for you!  ???

You can have a preview of my legal notes - Open Source Research and Development Web Site Agreement  http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/Contact.html (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/Contact.html)

Cheers
 ;)
LOL  It's a hell of a thing when I'm also obliged to tolerate your spamming.  There's nothing in that link other than a whole lot of intentions.  And  some questionable assumptions of an authority to comment at all about over unity matters.  I think you're rather disqualified until you delete your 'claims' as stated in that paper of ours that you've stolen.

In any event.  We were none of us expecting any serious contributions from you Glen Lettenmaier.  If you want it to be taken seriously you'll need to learn how to behave professionally.  First off.  One does not, as a rule, publish confidential emails - one does not as a rule steal papers that one has not written - one does not as a rule menace the public with threats of litigation that you do not intend to carry through - one does not as a rule pepper every post with calumny that would be enough to sink even the reputation of Mother Theresa - and one does not as a rule try and engage in any kind of discourse without some elementary language skills.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 09:31:37 AM
LOL  It's a hell of a thing when I'm also obliged to tolerate your spamming.  There's nothing in that link other than a whole lot of intentions.  And  some questionable assumptions of an authority to comment at all about over unity matters.  I think you're rather disqualified until you delete your 'claims' as stated in that paper of ours that you've stolen.

In any event.  We were none of us expecting any serious contributions from you Glen Lettenmaier.  If you want it to be taken seriously you'll need to learn how to behave professionally.  First off.  One does not, as a rule, publish confidential emails - one does not as a rule steal papers that one has not written - one does not as a rule menace the public with threats of litigation that you do not intend to carry through - one does not as a rule pepper every post with calumny that would be enough to sink even the reputation of Mother Theresa - and one does not as a rule try and engage in any kind of discourse without some elementary language skills.

Rosemary

Rosemary I could care less what you think I do with e-mails addressed to me and I'll do what I wish with them unless somehow specifically requested not to publish them, and majority rules. You are by far "NO" professional and I will not treat you as such, so dream on some more and have your maid wake you in a hour.

Second I've posted this controversy with your so called papers ... http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg317659/#msg317659 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg317659/#msg317659)  Reply #1692 on: April 04, 2012, 08:07:35 PM

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )


Are you having a hard time reading your own work there ?? Can you possibly understand what DATES are ?? How about which DATE comes first , second ..... etc. etc. ?? Please, answer or comment on these concerns are you capable of this ??

Your so called paper(s) documentation and collection of information is WRONG !! If not prove it without a reasonable doubt ... can you do that ??

Then do a new test without using a function generator using a 555 timer circuit, do a battery draw down test that is fully documented, video taped and can be verified 100% of the tests actually being done. This has been requested several times by Stefan .... you know who Stefan is ??

Stop screwing around and do something right for once in your lifetime.


Cheers,
FTC
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on April 05, 2012, 10:34:55 AM
Hello MileHigh

I assure you that we have a level of support that is both surprising and welcome.  The only joke is the transparent efforts by you and TK to detract from this technology.  And my personal knowledge is more than sufficient for the purposes of explaining every aspect of this rather simple circuit

What level of support....where...... everyone is free to post here yet no one comes to your defence showing everyone there working replication of your claim.

Everyone with any intelligent can see you made a mathematical error and yet you continue to insist that your claim is true.

You accuse others of detracting and debunking your technology yet you do nothing to change the situation, like those new tests.............YOU ARE DEBUNKING yourself

O of course you have so many excuses why you can't do new tests and you continuously blame other people when you are the one that needs to prove your case,the rest of us including the "guys" know your claim is Based on an error.

At some point this thread will probably be closed and of course you will blame other people for your inadequacies and the more you go on having pointless arguments and not doing any tests the more you prove you have nothing but a false claim
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 12:08:38 PM
I posted this scopeshot and asked, "Where did this come from, I wonder." This is Rosie Poser's reply:

You ASK?  You found it after an extensive search because you are rather reluctant to reference our official claim - detailed as it is in our paper.  Our claim is ONLY associated with our paper.  NOT with that video.  Surely you know that?  Or has this fact entirely eluded you TK?  In which case it seems that your language competence is as compromised as Glen Lettenmaier's.  I'll see if I can use simple words in future.

Rosie Pose

OH REALLY !!!

So this scope shot.... which you say I "found after an extensive search because you" (meaning TK) "are rather reluctant to reference our official claim - detailed as it is in our paper " represents your actual claim, then, does it?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 12:31:37 PM
I'm sorry, but this is getting to be too much like poking sticks through the bars of the cage of some poor trapped animal. Rosemary cannot get away from her "thesis" and her device because she's pathologically attached to it. It's like a cage that she can't escape. Within the cage she's the mistress, she can bite or claw at you, spit and hiss, piss on herself in frenzy like she did over the video,which of course contains her claim and her circuit and her methodology. But she can't get out of the cage, can't get away to "kill two birds with one stone" as she says.
Every poke draws a little blood, she gets more frantic and continues to thrash and flail about. But after a while it gets boring and even seems a little cruel, to be taking advantage of her captivity this way. Besides, the noise from her caterwauling starts to grate; her snide remarks and hypocrisy are like the vile odors rising from piss-soaked fur, coupled with the stench of mendacity as she tries to wheedle and wiggle out of the glare of the light and reach of the stick.

Test? TEST?? With TROLLS around? Never. And anybody who dares question her is, by definition, a TROLL.

There will never be any real testing from Rosemary (and we've all known this from the beginning) ..... because she herself knows how the test will turn out, and then it will really be all over. She cannot face that! And this must be the last forum available to her for discussion. She's used them all up, and any new ones in this field will surely know about good old OU dot com and Rosemary's history.

(Notice how the replicators are coming out of the woodwork NOT ... here's a device which, if one could only locate the actual proper circuit diagram, can be built with less than 50 dollars worth of parts (or 20 if you don't believe in magic mosfets and can use the 830a instead) and is guaranteed by the poser to produce COP INFINITY. Yet all these people on this site are building Besseler Wheels and MEGs and one-coil motors and things like that when they could have a COP INFINITY device put together on their workbench in half an hour and start testing it and charging their batteries and making oxtail soup. Why doesn't anybody else build and test Rosemary's device?

Why do you think I call it the Tar Baby?)


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
Compare the two circuit diagrams shown below. The one "without" the pretty blue border is the one that Rosemary has had us discussing for most of this thread, ever since .99 and others analyzed the video. This is the circuit diagram that is used in Tar Baby, and makes no sense for a couple of reasons.
The one WITH the pretty blue border is copy-pasted directly from the "paper" that Rosie Poser says contains her claims. I added the blue background and the captions, nothing else.

Note the difference. This subtle difference removes one of the reasons that "makes no sense", in that it puts the HEAVY LOAD onto the stack of 4 mosfets instead of having it carried by the single Q1 during the "high heat" mode where the circuit is carrying several amps of current. The blue border diagram finally manages to share this load among the Gang of Four.

And this is why the "paper's" circuit can be said to be "different" from the one in the video.

In other words..... it is again an example of obfuscation, error, and mendacity on the part of RA, who is supposed to have an OPEN SOURCE, shared information project going on here.

Fine. This is an easy modification for the experimenters and replicators to make.  For Tar Baby it just involves pulling the mosfets... sorry, MOSFETs out of their sockets, turning them all around, and adding a bit of wire length to the Q1 leads, since the existing ones are very short. Will it make a difference in performance? Yes.... the Q1 mosfet will be less likely to fail, since now it will "never" really be loaded: in the low heat mode it will just oscillate, passing minuscule current, and in the high heat mode it is out of the circuit entirely and could just as well be removed. Will it turn Tar Baby into a NERD? We shall see.

Had they used THIS circuit in the video instead of the one that they actually accidentally did use, they could have used the full 60 or maybe even 72 volts for the high heat mode, and that would have been much more impressive than the unexplained removal of one battery to lower the voltage (and thus the current through the lone mosfet) to safe levels.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 06:35:13 PM
Compare the two circuit diagrams shown below. The one "without" the pretty blue border is the one that Rosemary has had us discussing for most of this thread, ever since .99 and others analyzed the video. This is the circuit diagram that is used in Tar Baby, and makes no sense for a couple of reasons.
The one WITH the pretty blue border is copy-pasted directly from the "paper" that Rosie Poser says contains her claims. I added the blue background and the captions, nothing else.

Note the difference. This subtle difference removes one of the reasons that "makes no sense", in that it puts the HEAVY LOAD onto the stack of 4 mosfets instead of having it carried by the single Q1 during the "high heat" mode where the circuit is carrying several amps of current. The blue border diagram finally manages to share this load among the Gang of Four.

And this is why the "paper's" circuit can be said to be "different" from the one in the video.

In other words..... it is again an example of obfuscation, error, and mendacity on the part of RA, who is supposed to have an OPEN SOURCE, shared information project going on here.

Fine. This is an easy modification for the experimenters and replicators to make.  For Tar Baby it just involves pulling the mosfets... sorry, MOSFETs out of their sockets, turning them all around, and adding a bit of wire length to the Q1 leads, since the existing ones are very short. Will it make a difference in performance? Yes.... the Q1 mosfet will be less likely to fail, since now it will "never" really be loaded: in the low heat mode it will just oscillate, passing minuscule current, and in the high heat mode it is out of the circuit entirely and could just as well be removed. Will it turn Tar Baby into a NERD? We shall see.

Had they used THIS circuit in the video instead of the one that they actually accidentally did use, they could have used the full 60 or maybe even 72 volts for the high heat mode, and that would have been much more impressive than the unexplained removal of one battery to lower the voltage (and thus the current through the lone mosfet) to safe levels.

Hey TK,

All the experimentalist, members and guests have been "DUPED" again .....

The papers that were sent out to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication by the NERD RAT team have two different device schematics ....

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus   ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_Q2_x4_Q1_.PNG

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure   ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG


As you can see Q1 / Q2 x4 is flip flopped or reversed in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_Q2_x4_Q1_.PNG .... and .... ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG  :o

WTF is going on here ?? Why have we been not informed by the NERD RAT team and or Rosemary Ann Ainslie of this "HUGE" difference in the device schematics ?? This is on the verge of being criminal !!  >:(

FTC
 ???
 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
Is stupidity criminal?

 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
Re the use of the function generator: I say, LET HER USE IT. There is no need for a special 555 timer circuit that may make it difficult for her to achieve her desired oscillations. (No snide remarks about how long it might have been since she's achieved her desired oscillations, please.)

Simply require that the circuit be operated in the HIGH HEAT mode, sustaining the temperature of the custom 11.11 ohm load at 190 degrees C or more, for at least 48 hours, using the reduced battery pack of 36 volts, 60 Amp Hours. Since the circuit has been shown to draw somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 amps in this mode, or maybe even more, a 48-hour run should, if Rosemary is right, not deplete the batteries at all. OTOH, if Rosemary is wrong, the run will use up all or most of the battery's capacity.

Then do the Dim Bulb test comparing the run batteries with the three set-aside batteries. Whichever set goes out first..... loses.



Anybody want to start a betting pool on the outcome? Guess the duration, buy a minute for ten dollars, closest guesser gets the pot.

I have already bought 0 minutes, and 1 minute.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 09:05:13 PM
Is stupidity criminal?

 :-*
if it was, they would have locked you away a long time ago for failing diffy equations 5? times...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 09:24:51 PM
if it was, they would have locked you away a long time ago for failing diffy equations 5? times...
Get your facts straight, troll. I failed it twice, passed it the third time. Some would argue that that  makes me even more stupid than you... some might not. How many times did Rosemary Ainlsie take it before she passed? Oh... that's right... none, she didn't even pass algebra 1 in high school. One of the fails was because I ditched the final exam in order to complete a 500 km solo flight -- the so called "diamond distance" flight of the FAI -- in a sailplane. That's REAL free energy, solar powered all the way.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand, does it Wilby troll. It is Rosemary's stupidity that is at issue here, not mine, or haven't you been following?

The original mistake in the COP>17 555 timer duty cycle
The mistake in wiring the current apparatus
The mistake in the several circuit diagrams
The calculation of 25.6 megaJoules
The mathematical meaning of PER
The provenance of the VIDEO and her disavowal of it
The statements she made about her scope shots I posted
The latest gaffe of the different YET AGAIN circuit diagrams
The "endorsements" of Glen, Powercat, and Prof. Kahn
The failure of ANYONE to replicate and support her claims

And last but not least, your own failure to contribute anything of value to the discussion of the topic:

WHY WON'T ROSEMARY PERFORM THE SIMPLE BATTERY TESTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR for ten years or more?


Want to buy a minute? "infinite" is still available, I think......
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 09:40:22 PM
is there enough detail in my videos for one skilled in the art to do it for themselves? Yes, there is. In Rosemary's? No, there is not.

Then Poynt carefully watched your clip and reverse-engineered the circuit and discovered that you were not showing the correct diagram in your paper and as a result the "secret was revealed."

am i the only one who sees the GLARING CONTRADICTION here? why is tinselkoala/alsetalokin accusing poynt99 of not being skilled in the art? why is he posting complete falsehoods?

will you please come back to reality and at least show some integrity?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 09:42:56 PM
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand, does it Wilby troll. It is Rosemary's stupidity that is at issue here, not mine, or haven't you been following?
then why did you bring it up?

WHY WON'T ROSEMARY PERFORM THE SIMPLE BATTERY TESTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR for ten years or more?
probably for the same reasons you won't perform that simple public mea culpa you owe me...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 09:43:21 PM
Idiot. It has taken a team of at least 4 different talented individuals a YEAR to figure out that circuit and its performance. Just TODAY another discrepancy has come to light, no thanks to Rosie Poser.

YOU are the one who needs to back up and take a look at the whole picture, troll.

And I owe you nothing. In fact I seem to recall that YOU promised to send ME something and didn't do it. But anyway, I've uploaded my "apology". Just press Alt-F4 to display it in this window.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 09:46:11 PM
Idiot. It has taken a team of at least 4 different talented individuals a YEAR to figure out that circuit and its performance. Just TODAY another discrepancy has come to light, no thanks to Rosie Poser.

YOU are the one who needs to back up and take a look at the whole picture, troll.
there you go trying to ride someone elses gravy train again. ::) poynt did that on his own... you didn't help him one iota. you had run off crying to your mommy... remember? i do.

will you please come back to reality and at least show some integrity?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 09:50:28 PM
And I owe you nothing. In fact I seem to recall that YOU promised to send ME something and didn't do it. But anyway, I've uploaded my "apology". Just press Alt-F4 to display it in this window.

editing without notation?  imagine that! ::) and it's another logical fallacy to boot! mr. ad hominem tu quo que... 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 09:51:31 PM
there you go trying to ride someone elses gravy train again. ::) poynt did that on his own... you didn't help him one iota. you had run off crying to your mommy... remember? i do.

will you please come back to reality and at least show some integrity?
You are the one who is reality-challenged, wilbydrunkard. This thread is not about me. Are you saying that my actual circuit builds did not contribute to the knowledge we all now have about the circuit and Rosemary's behaviour? That is plainly untrue. And my "mommy" has been dead for twenty years, and I'll thank you, TROLL, not to mention her again. Especially not when you use the word "integrity" in the same post.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 05, 2012, 09:57:50 PM
You are the one who is reality-challenged, wilbydrunkard. This thread is not about me. Are you saying that my actual circuit builds did not contribute to the knowledge we all now have about the circuit and Rosemary's behaviour? That is plainly untrue. And my "mommy" has been dead for twenty years, and I'll thank you, TROLL, not to mention her again. Especially not when you use the word "integrity" in the same post.
TU STULTUS ES!  i said and i quote: "poynt did that on his own... you didn't help him one iota."
are you saying you helped poynt reverse engineer that video? and if so, then why would you contradict that by saying and i quote:
is there enough detail in my videos for one skilled in the art to do it for themselves? Yes, there is. In Rosemary's? No, there is not.



english... do you speak it? or did you fail that 5 times too...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 05, 2012, 11:34:03 PM
To all,

In consideration of a replication, I have been studying the two "papers" to which our focus is to be directed.

In the two "papers", even though the schematics appear to transpose the quad and single MOSFET connections, we can assume that in either circuit, regardless of whether the "quad" is Q1 or Q2, when the function generator output is positive, at least one MOSFET will be turned on, or at least partially so.

Referring to the first of the two papers presented (Experimental Evidence of a Breach...), FIG 3 depicts the conditions for "Test 1".  If I am reading this LeCroy scope shot correctly, it appears that during the period when the function generator output is positive, the gate drive is approx. +12.5 volts.  During this same time perod, the voltage across Rshunt appears to indicate little if any current flow (i.e., little if any Vdrop across Rshunt).

How can this be?  If we assume that irregardless of which schematic is referenced, at least one MOSFET is connected in such a way that it would turn on fully with this level of positive voltage applied to the gate, there should be current flow indicated by the voltage at Rshunt.

In FIG 5, which references "Test 2", it appears that the gate voltage during the same positive FG period is approx. +5 volts, and, just as one would expect, the voltage across Rshunt indicates that approx. 2 amps are flowing.  Consulting the data sheet for the IRFPG50, the indicated two amps is (depending on device temp) in fair agreement with this level of gate drive.

Am I reading these levels correctly on the scope shots?  If so, in the FIG 3 scope shot referencing "Test 1", it would appear that the MOSFET that should turn on at the indicated gate drive level is either disconnected from the circuit or has gone "open circuit" (a fairly atypical failure mode as DS shorts are more common)

If anyone has an alternate explanation or if I am reading the LeCroy shots incorrectly, please explain.

PW

   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 01:04:53 AM
Hmmm... for reference I have attached the relevant figures from the paper below.

It sure looks to me like picowatt is right. In Figure 5, in fact, there does appear to be _less_ positive gate drive voltage than in Figure 3. With a positive going gate drive pulse of 10-12 volts as indicated in Fig 3 there should have been a mosfet turning on, and we'd see this in both the CVR trace and in the common drain trace (missing on these screens).

This paper claims to use the FIRST crossover circuit, though... the one that would heavily load the single Q1 mosfet during a positive gate pulse. And as I believe I have shown, with a 60 or 72 volt battery pack and the 11.11 ohm load,  this mosfet would likely fail rapidly because its absolute maximum drain current and power dissipation levels (not well heatsunk) would be exceeded.

So perhaps picowatt is right: we are looking at a trace from a system with a blown mosfet. Any other explanations?

(Isn't it interesting that the oscillations are happening during the LOW or off phase of the gate drive signal ?)

In the text of the paper we find:
Quote
A. Test 1 Setup
The schematic in Fig. 1 refers with the following settings: 6
batteries x 12 volts each were applied in series. The offset of
the function generator was set to its extreme negative limit
resulting in an entire restriction of current flow during the ON
phase of the duty cycle. The duty cycle is also set to the limit
of the function generator’s shortest ON time within each
switching period of 2.7 minutes. The waveforms produced by
this setup are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
But the gate drive signal shown in Figure 3 clearly shows a positive-going signal. I think if the LeCroy's channel trace invert is selected a symbol appears in the channel setting box, but I can't really recall.


It also appears that these are not live waveforms, they are stored and displayed from memory (the M at top left, the memory menu on the right side of the screen). With filenames like "bloc1068" and "bloc1029" it's easy to see how one might select the wrong waveform from memory and not display the intended one. But it's more likely that they have a blown mosfet, open from the heat, rather than shorted from overvoltage.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 02:03:06 AM
There is something else funny about those traces. Note in Figure 5 the scope is computing the integral of the CVR trace.... and its mean, max and min are all positive. It's very weird to want to see this integral... but the fact that it IS computed and the values that are given mean that the net voltage drop across the CVR is POSITIVE, even accounting for the swings above and below zero during the oscillations. Presumably the scope is integrating across one full cycle. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think it matters to the conclusion.
And of course the battery trace is always positive even during its wildest (illusory) swings.
Yet the scope's math trace, simply doing a point by point multiplication of these two traces, comes up with negative mean, max and min values. There is only one way this could happen, and it's not "reverse current flow". I think that would have shown up as a negative value on the integral of the CVR trace.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 02:49:16 AM
TK,

I had not considered that CH3 imght be inverted in one of the scope shots.  I do not believe that to be the case, as both views show the oscillation that occurs when the comon gate amplifier is biased on by the negative voltage from the FG. 

SO, that leaves two possibilities, an internal D or S bond wire or the die was fused open in one or more MOSFET's (depends on which circuit is correct, just Q1 if as in the first paper), or one or more MOSFETS was removed/disconnected from the circuit during the test (again, Q1 if the first paper schematic is followed).

Assuming Q1 is fully turned on and RDSon equivalent to something close to 2R, Rload = 11R1, and Vbatt=60vots, Q1 would dissipate ca. 40 watts via about 4.5 amps flowing through the circuit.   Thermal stress (over temp) more often causes a short between the drain and source.  A severe overcurrent can fuse the bond wires or blow the package apart, but the IRFPG50 has a max Id of 6.1 amps, usually indicating the bond wires/wafer can handle at least that much current (as long as max wattage/temp is not exceeded).  With thermal stress, a D/S short is a more common failure mode.

In any of your 830's that you "blew" from overtemp, what was the failure mode?  D/S open or shorted?

PW


 

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 02:52:08 AM
To all,

In consideration of a replication, I have been studying the two "papers" to which our focus is to be directed.

In the two "papers", even though the schematics appear to transpose the quad and single MOSFET connections, we can assume that in either circuit, regardless of whether the "quad" is Q1 or Q2, when the function generator output is positive, at least one MOSFET will be turned on, or at least partially so.

Referring to the first of the two papers presented (Experimental Evidence of a Breach...), FIG 3 depicts the conditions for "Test 1".  If I am reading this LeCroy scope shot correctly, it appears that during the period when the function generator output is positive, the gate drive is approx. +12.5 volts.  During this same time perod, the voltage across Rshunt appears to indicate little if any current flow (i.e., little if any Vdrop across Rshunt).

How can this be?  If we assume that irregardless of which schematic is referenced, at least one MOSFET is connected in such a way that it would turn on fully with this level of positive voltage applied to the gate, there should be current flow indicated by the voltage at Rshunt.

In FIG 5, which references "Test 2", it appears that the gate voltage during the same positive FG period is approx. +5 volts, and, just as one would expect, the voltage across Rshunt indicates that approx. 2 amps are flowing.  Consulting the data sheet for the IRFPG50, the indicated two amps is (depending on device temp) in fair agreement with this level of gate drive.

Am I reading these levels correctly on the scope shots?  If so, in the FIG 3 scope shot referencing "Test 1", it would appear that the MOSFET that should turn on at the indicated gate drive level is either disconnected from the circuit or has gone "open circuit" (a fairly atypical failure mode as DS shorts are more common)

If anyone has an alternate explanation or if I am reading the LeCroy shots incorrectly, please explain.

PW

Thank you very much.  We've finally got an appropriate observation.  INDEED that's what we've been pointing to in that first test of that first part of that two part paper.

The current flow from the supply is blocked through adjustments to the off set that there is no current flow at all during the 'on' period of the duty cycle.  Then during the 'off' period when the battery is indeed prevented from discharging any energy we have evidence of an oscillation that can persist for the full duration that the negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1. 

The intention of Paper 2 is to resolve those paths.

Test 2, 3 and 4 were performed to show the exploitable potential in that configuration proposed to be due to the explanation in the second part of that paper.

Regards,
Rosemary
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 02:59:19 AM
TK,

I see in the first paper that 6 batteries are indicated so with Vbatt at 72 volts and Q1 fully on, it would disipate closer to 58 watts via ca. 5.4 amps flowing.

Even 40 watts would require a decent heat sink, however, the positive portion of the duty cycle in the scope shots looks to be between 5-10%, so likely an IRFPF50 could survive this level of thermal dissipation for some time, as it could cool off for remaining 90-95% of the total cycle time.  Possibly the 5.4 amps was a bit close to the abs. max of 6.1 amps...

I am wondering if Q1 was inadvertantly diconnected during "Test 1".

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 03:10:03 AM
TK,

I see in the first paper that 6 batteries are indicated so with Vbatt at 72 volts and Q1 fully on, it would disipate closer to 58 watts via ca. 5.4 amps flowing.

Even 40 watts would require a decent heat sink, however, the positive portion of the duty cycle in the scope shots looks to be between 5-10%, so likely an IRFPF50 could survive this level of thermal dissipation for some time, as it could cool off for remaining 90-95% of the total cycle time.  Possibly the 5.4 amps was a bit close to the abs. max of 6.1 amps...

I am wondering if Q1 was inadvertantly diconnected during "Test 1".

PW
If you are only referring to Test 1 then why should you assume that any current was passed via Q1?  In which case why should the transistor get unduly hot?

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 03:11:33 AM
Rosemary,

Are you stating that the schematic in the first paper is correct AND the scope shot "FIG 3" also correctly represents that schematic's operation?

If so, there was a problem with the Q1 or its connections during "Test 1".  Either Q1 was not functioning, i.e., it was internally open, or there was a bad connection to Q1 on the breadboard.  There can be no other explanation.

Surely you must see that if +12.5 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 it would/must turn on if the schematic is correct.

Again, Q1 had to have been defective or a connection to it was not indeed connected.  If the schematic is correct, I see no other option.

Electronically, what is your explanation?

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 03:24:35 AM
Rosemary has "DUPED" us again experimentalist, members and guests,


All the papers that were sent out to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication by the NERD RAT team have two different device schematics ....

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus   ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_Q2_x4_Q1_.PNG

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure   ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG


As you can see Q1 / Q2 x4 is flip flopped or reversed in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_Q2_x4_Q1_.PNG .... and .... ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG   :o


Rosemary explain this if you possibly can ..... there are to many of your unchecked device diagrams floating around and you haven't tied even one to any kind of a complete forum posted test package just lumps of crap !!

You know the drill always bloviating on all the engineers and academics that has seen your proposed failed devices whats required for consideration of a "CLAIM" .... WTF is your problem !!!  >:(


When can we expect the required testing from you that Stefan requested we've been waiting days now !!  Did you not read Stefan's postings ???


Cheers,
FTC
 ???
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 03:25:49 AM
Rosemary,

Are you stating that the schematic in the first paper is correct AND the scope shot "FIG 3" also correctly represents that schematic's operation?

If so, there was a problem with the Q1 or its connections during "Test 1".  Either Q1 was not functioning, i.e., it was internally open, or there was a bad connection to Q1 on the breadboard.  There can be no other explanation.

Surely you must see that if +12.5 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 it would/must turn on if the schematic is correct.

Again, Q1 had to have been defective or a connection to it was not indeed connected.  If the schematic is correct, I see no other option.

Electronically, what is your explanation?

PW

Picowatt

I was given to understand that the offset of the function generator comprises a potentiometer that can be applied to resist the current flow from the battery supply.  It is applicable to all the function generators that we used and we tested this on 2 different types and on a total of 6 different function generators during the two years that this circuit has been researched.

What I KNOW is that this is able to determine the rate at which the energy from the battery supply source is applied.  But whatever manages this, the fact is that we can entirely restrict the flow of current or vary this as required with that offset.  I leave that to the experts to determine.  What should be of interest is that there is INDEED no current flow during the 'on' period of the duty cycle.  There is nothing 'impaired' in the transistor.  If you look at test 2, 3 and 4 - they all behave as required during the 'on' period. 

And of interest and why these papers were written - is the fact that there is any path at all to allow the oscillation.  What's begged is an explanation for the positive half of each half of that oscillation.  If this is coming from the battery supply then how does it flow through Q1 or Q2?  This is precisely the point of discussion that we arrived at with Poynty - when TK  then usurped this thread with his rather pretentious claim of a replication let alone a debunk.

Rosemary

added
And may I add - that this is also precisely why he needed to 'avoid' all reference to our papers.  I'm only sorry that he managed to distract everyone for as long as he did with those absurd analyses related to the 'function' of the 'mosfet' as he terms it.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 03:37:56 AM
Rosemary,

The scope shot FIG3 for "Test1" indicates that during the portion of the cycle when the function generator is positive, a voltage of +12.5 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  From the IRFPG50 data sheet, with Vds of 70 volts, and at a temp of 25C, Q1 should be equivalent to a 3 ohm resistor (a bit higher resistance if hotter).

With Rload = 11.1 ohms, total load resistance across the 72 volt battery would be ca 13.3 ohms (the sum of Rload plus Q1's RDSon plus Rshunt) which means that ca. 5.4 amps should be flowing.  5.4 amps across the 3 ohms of Q1 would mean that there would be 16.2 volts across Q1.  16.2 volts times 5.4 amps is just over 87 watts.  That is a lot of heat.

However, in the FIG. 3, no current flow is indicated which indicates that Q1 is defective or not connected.

In FIG. 5 for "Test 2", all is as it should be.  Q1 has +5.5 volts applied to the gate, in good agreement with the IRFPG50 data sheet, ca. 2 amps should flow and is indeed indicated in the FIG. 5 scope shot.

Increasing the positive voltage on the gate of Q1 beyond +5.5 volts should cause additional current to flow as Q1 is turned on further. 

In "Test 1", little if any current flow is indicated by FIG 3 even though the gate voltage in Q1 is indicated as being more positive than the level indicated in "Test 2".

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 03:45:38 AM
Rosemary,

You're replying faster than I can type!

The fact that the other tests, in particular, Test 2, do perform as one would expect and Test 1 does not, indicates an error issue during that test. 

You are preaching to the choir regarding how a function generator works, and I do agree that if the FG output was zero volts or a negative voltage, Q1 would not turn on, but the scope shot FIG 3 for Test 1 indicates a gate voltage of +12.5 volts is being applied to Q1 during the positive portion of the FG's output.  This should turn Q1 on even moreso than is done in Test 2.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 03:52:51 AM
Rosie and All:

Quote
I was given to understand that the offset of the function generator comprises a potentiometer that can be applied to resist the current flow from the battery supply.

That's typical mysterious Rosie prose, dear Rosie.  It would appear that you/she believes that somehow the battery current that flows straight through function generator also has to flow though the offset potentiometer.  Such that if you play with the offset potentiometer you reduce the battery current.  She has hinted at this before with typical Rose pseudo "elektro-prose."  You guys can try to figure that one out.

It sounds like Rosie is back into trying to understand this "simple circuit" that she she said she completely understands.

The real message here is that if you put scope captures in a report you must understand every single aspect of the each waveform in each scope capture.   That's something that the RATs clearly did not do.

Anyway, back to my little pet project.  I confirmed that the circuit is miswired as per Poynt's original reverse-engineered diagram.

So, stay tuned, the "Pegboard of Doom" will be posted soon.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 03:54:25 AM
Rosemary,

The scope shot FIG3 for "Test1" indicates that during the portion of the cycle when the function generator is positive, a voltage of +12.5 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  From the IRFPG50 data sheet, with Vds of 70 volts, and at a temp of 25C, Q1 should be equivalent to a 3 ohm resistor (a bit higher resistance if hotter).

With Rload = 11.1 ohms, total load resistance across the 72 volt battery would be ca 13.3 ohms (the sum of Rload plus Q1's RDSon plus Rshunt) which means that ca. 5.4 amps should be flowing.  5.4 amps across the 3 ohms of Q1 would mean that there would be 16.2 volts across Q1.  16.2 volts times 5.4 amps is just over 87 watts.  That is a lot of heat.

However, in the FIG. 3, no current flow is indicated which indicates that Q1 is defective or not connected.
I assure you that Q1 is most certainly connected.  The offset button is applied to restrict the flow of current.  Picowatt.  I can only assure you that this additional function in a function generator is also available on TK's function generator.  They all have this function. It is able to determine the rate at which current is applied.  I do not know what comes into play.  I was given to understand that it is acted as a potentiometer and assumed that it could superimpose a degree of corresponding or opposing charge to restrict the flow from the battery supply.  I would have thought that you guys would have known the explanation for this.  Certainly it has been seen and applied by some highly proficient engineers.  And before you it has never even been referenced.  However.  What I KNOW and how we apply this - is to RESTRICT the flow of current during the 'on' period of that duty cycle.

In FIG. 5 for "Test 2", all is as it should be.  Q1 has +5.5 volts applied to the gate, in good agreement with the IRFPG50 data sheet, ca. 2 amps should flow and is indeed indicated in the FIG. 5 scope shot.
Agreed.  Yet if you look at the math trace you'll see that the product of the battery and shunt voltages are negative.  And this, in turn, corresponds to our own analyses from those data dumps where we compute a negative wattage.

Increasing the positive voltage on the gate of Q1 beyond +5.5 volts should cause additional current to flow as Q1 is turned on further. 

In "Test 1", little if any current flow is indicated by FIG 3 even though the gate voltage in Q1 is indicated as being more positive than the level indicated in "Test 2".
I think you should take a look at the results of our 'water to boil' test - which is test 3.  We adjusted the offset that during the on period that it was barely above zero.  Which means that there is no real correspondence between the measured input and the actual heat dissipated.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED

And MileHigh - I have NEVER presumed to comment on the functions generator.  Only on our circuit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 03:54:31 AM
Hey guys,

Your talking about Figure3 and Figure5 here in the paper called Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus    ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )

Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #5    dated 02/09/11    500us    49.5v    (4 battery)


Please see Rosemary's posting "SHOWING" a image of the device under test "A ONE MOSFET VERSION" on March 18, 2011 days after the scope shots in reference Fig #3 and Fig #5

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271)    Reply #124 on: March 18, 2011, 10:56:29 AM


How can a five mosfet device version be referenced here ??? ANYONE ??

FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 03:59:45 AM
@picowatt
The max Id of the IRFPG50 drops to 3.9 Amps at 100 degrees C, a normal operating temp _when properly heatsunk_.

Below, in the single mosfet version, one may view the heatsink of the lone mosfet. It's still there in the 5 transistor version but can't be seen as well.

(ETA: I see that Fuzzy has posted an even better picture of this. Isn't that a cute little heatsink for a mosfet that can dissipate 190 Watts? They got much more realistic on the Gang of Four.... I wonder why.)

I have both failure modes in the 830a, one each. One is shorted all around, and the other is open drain-source and shorted gate-source and of course won't switch. The open came when I had the thermal runaway before I was well-heatsunk, IIRC, and the other came from a short ... I think I applied full battery voltage to the gate or something, I'm not really sure. I've thrown them away already so I can't do any further checking.

You are "preaching to the choir" about failures in mosfets... believe me, I understand how mosfets can fail, having literally blown apart a double handful while developing the TinselKoil. Usually I could find most of the pieces ..... but I'll never know what the landlord must have thought when those "gunshot" like sounds were coming from the basement....."BANG dammit......"
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 04:13:38 AM
Rosemary,

I see that in your text describing Test 1 that you do state that you set the FG output to its full negative offset in order to prevent Q1 from turning on.  However, the FIG 3 for Test 1 does not indicate this.

Do you agree that the FIG 3 gate drive signal indicates +12.5 volts being applied to Q1 during the FG's positive portion of the duty cycle and that at that level, Q1 must turn on?

Assuming that the FG output did indeed not go positive during Test 1, is it possible that the FIG 3 is not the correct scope shot for that test?  Possiby the wrong save was pulled from the scope's memory...?

I'll look at the other tests, just trying to get past this discrepancy...

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 04:15:40 AM
@picowatt:

Here's Fig 6 from Test 3.

It looks to me like there is some current flowing during the non-oscillating portions. It's really too bad we don't have the common drain trace, which would give a lot more information. The CVR trace is set to 2 v/div and is showing about half a minor division up from zero during the non-osc phase, so that would be around 0.2 volts positive drop.

Recalling that the CVR is 0.25 ohms, that means around 800 mA flowing, I suppose.

Certainly the gate drive signal does not correspond to the description in the paper or Rosemary's present description, going as it does from zero (with oscillations) to around 10 Volts.

Figure 7 again appears to show no voltage drop in the CVR trace, yet the gate signal, once again, is from zero to about 10 volts positive. And of course the claim is that the load heated strongly in this mode.

But that's not what was shown LIVE in the video. These are stored traces obtained at different times with cryptic filenames. What is the chance that the descriptions that we are given do not match the traces we are shown? Considering the history, I mean.....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 04:19:09 AM
TK,

Did not mean to "preach"

Hey, were you not dealing with an H bridge on that coil?  I would think the most comon cause of failure would have been simultaneous turn on of the "upper and lower", and then BANG indeed...

Typically, in electronics, were to need goggles for flying wire lead ends when clipped with diagonals, not pieces of package material flying about!

It's all good...

PW

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 04:19:39 AM
Rosemary,

I see that in your text describing Test 1 that you do state that you set the FG output to its full negative offset in order to prevent Q1 from turning on.  However, the FIG 3 for Test 1 does not indicate this.

Do you agree that the FIG 3 gate drive signal indicates +12.5 volts being applied to Q1 during the FG's positive portion of the duty cycle and that at that level, Q1 must turn on?

Assuming that the FG output did indeed not go positive during Test 1, is it possible that the FIG 3 is not the correct scope shot for that test?  Possiby the wrong save was pulled from the scope's memory...?

I'll look at the other tests, just trying to get past this discrepancy...

PW

Picowatt - I am well aware of the level of the applied voltage from the signal.  It does not, however, correspond to the actual applied voltage which is somehow overridden by the offset function. 

We could apply this same 'offset' to our 555 tests but not at the same scale of proficiency.  And we only ever applied it to restrict the flow from the battery and to enhance the over all efficiencies.

And I can assure you that it is NOT related to the degradation of any part of our MOSFETS.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 04:27:31 AM
@picowatt:

Here's Fig 6 from Test 3.

It looks to me like there is some current flowing during the non-oscillating portions. It's really too bad we don't have the common drain trace, which would give a lot more information. The CVR trace is set to 2 v/div and is showing about half a minor division up from zero during the non-osc phase, so that would be around 0.2 volts positive drop.

Recalling that the CVR is 0.25 ohms, that means around 800 mA flowing, I suppose.
Guys, again, TK is trying very hard to imply that there's 50 watts or thereby being delivered.  Unfortunately he's not factored in the impedance resulting from that applied frequency.  That changes the picture ENTIRELY.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 04:28:48 AM
The gate drive signal is picked up by a scope probe hooked up to the board. It is showing what the FG is putting out and what the circuit is seeing. No amount of wishful fantasy about how an offset control functions can change this fact.

Fuzzy.... you have uncovered another SMOKING GUN !! The scope shots were saved DAYS, even WEEKS before the Single mosfet photo was presented to us as the device CURRENTLY being tested at that time. And it's clear that the one in the picture has NOT YET had the Gang of Four added.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 04:33:00 AM
Guys, again, TK is trying very hard to imply that there's 50 watts or thereby being delivered.  Unfortunately he's not factored in the impedance resulting from that applied frequency.  That changes the picture ENTIRELY.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary, the power dissipated in a resistance is given by P=I^2 R. In this case we have 800 mA flowing through 11.11 ohms at the load. By Ohm's Law, we then have P=(. 8) (. 8) (11.11) = a little over seven Watts, not 50.

And you know nothing of impedance, obviously.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 04:33:24 AM
The gate drive signal is picked up by a scope probe hooked up to the board. It is showing what the FG is putting out and what the circuit is seeing. No amount of wishful fantasy about how an offset control functions can change this fact.

Fuzzy.... you have uncovered another SMOKING GUN !! The scope shots were saved DAYS, even WEEKS before the Single mosfet photo was presented to us as the device CURRENTLY being tested at that time. And it's clear that the one in the picture has NOT YET had the Gang of Four added.

TinselKoala your attempts at implying that our results are misrepresented are really somewhat pitiful.  The 'single mosfet' as you put it - photo - was the VERY FIRST PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VERY FIRST CIRCUIT AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR SOJOURN INTO THESE NEW TESTS.  What a sad little effort to imply falsification of data.  Your efforts are getting transparently absurd.  You need to do better.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 04:36:15 AM
The dates of the photo and the scope shots do not support your argument. And we know already how many times you have argued strongly for a wrong position -- like the "50 watts" above -- , and later had to retract it in public. "Trust me on this".... and then you had to apologise to me AGAIN for being wrong and pig-headed about it.
I don't know what is the case here, I'm just going by Fuzzy's posts... but I certainly find him to be much more reliable than you.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 04:36:39 AM
Rosemary, the power dissipated in a resistance is given by P=I^2 R. In this case we have 800 mA flowing through 11.11 ohms at the load. By Ohm's Law, we then have P=(. 8) (. 8) (11.11) = a little over seven Watts, not 50.

And you know nothing of impedance, obviously.

TK - I was referring the output from the battery.  Wattage delivered is most certainly closer to 7 watts.  And you know this perfectly well.  You're just hoping that our readers will overlook this.  And how you can argue that the impedance does not effect the resistance value of the shunt is beyond me.  Clearly I know considerably more than you do.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 04:39:13 AM
Rosemary,

Channel 3, trace D is indeed the voltage applied to the Q1 gate, correct?

This voltage, when positive, indicates to a fair degree, the actual ouput of the function generator, as the loading on the generator is minimal when its output is positive (Q2 is biased off and the gate of Q1 is a very high impedance once Ciss is charged).

Things change a bit when the FG goes negative, as the bias current for Q2 now causes a voltage drop across the function generator's internal 50 ohm resistor.  If we knew the open circuit voltage versus the closed circuit voltage of the function generator's output when its output is negative, we could calculate the bias current for Q2.  Without those figures, all replicators will have to approximate or guess at the bias current for Q2 based on IRFPG50 data sheets and trial and error of the negative going setting.

It is important at the least, that all the scope shots are correct and reflect the actual test described so that FG settings can be set as close as possible to your operating conditions.

PW

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 04:41:50 AM
The dates of the photo and the scope shots do not support your argument. And we know already how many times you have argued strongly for a wrong position -- like the "50 watts" above -- , and later had to retract it in public. "Trust me on this".... and then you had to apologise to me AGAIN for being wrong and pig-headed about it.
I don't know what is the case here, I'm just going by Fuzzy's posts... but I certainly find him to be much more reliable than you.

Guys let me make this absolutely clear.  Since I have learned so thoroughly how TK's mission is deny EVERYTHING he can, I have NEVER apologised to TK for anything at all.  Nor will I.  And I cannot dismantle the existing state of the apparatus if I wanted to.  I do not have the competence nor the eyesight.  That photograph was taken by me before it was modified to this Q-array circuit.  Why would I lie about that?

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 04:50:12 AM
Rosemary,

Channel 3, trace D is indeed the voltage applied to the Q1 gate, correct?

This voltage, when positive, indicates to a fair degree, the actual ouput of the function generator, as the loading on the generator is minimal when its output is positive (Q2 is biased off and the gate of Q1 is a very high impedance once Ciss is charged).

Things change a bit when the FG goes negative, as the bias current for Q2 now causes a voltage drop across the function generator's internal 50 ohm resistor.  If we knew the open circuit voltage versus the closed circuit voltage of the function generator's output when its output is negative, we could calculate the bias current for Q2.  Without those figures, all replicators will have to approximate or guess at the bias current for Q2 based on IRFPG50 data sheets and trial and error of the negative going setting.

It is important at the least, that all the scope shots are correct and reflect the actual test described so that FG settings can be set as close as possible to your operating conditions.

PW

Picowatt - are you saying that you're trying to replicate this?  In which case are you using a function generator?  Then if so, you'll be able to apply that 'offset' as required and you will see what it is that you'll get.  And the beauty of that little LeCroy is that there is no way it can do anything other than reflect the actual waveforms.  Well within it's competence.  And I certainly don't have the competence to alter any of the data that it shows.

If you read the text you'll see that our emphasis is absolutely to allow experts to evaluate the evidence.  And that evidence is easily replicated.  And I'm entirely satisfied we're not talking about vagaries in the function generator.  But again.  That's for you experts to determine.  And I certainly do not include TK in that list.

Regards again
Rosemary

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 04:59:21 AM
Okay!  It's time for the really big shew!!!

Here is what I figured out:  The circuit started out with one MOSFET, Q1.  Then they added the big aluminum heatsink set with the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs.  When they did that they did the miswiring.

Look at the original diagram in the clip.  Q1's source connects to the shunt, all is seemingly normal.  But then when you add the wiring mistake when they added the Q2-Q5 setup you end up getting the Pegboard of Doom!

In negative oscillation mode you end up bypassing the current sensing resister!  Muhahahaha....

Muhahahahaaaaa! Muh-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaa....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 05:00:12 AM
For reference.....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 05:01:49 AM
The clip of Terror!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 05:03:11 AM
Guys let me make this absolutely clear.  Since I have learned so thoroughly how TK's mission is deny EVERYTHING he can, I have NEVER apologised to TK for anything at all.  Nor will I.  And I cannot dismantle the existing state of the apparatus if I wanted to.  I do not have the competence nor the eyesight.  That photograph was taken by me before it was modified to this Q-array circuit.  Why would I lie about that?

Rosemary

Rosemary said .....Why would I lie about that? ... Why would I lie about that? ... Why would I lie about that? ... Why would I lie about that? ... Why would I lie about that? ... Why would I lie about that? ... Why would I lie about that? ... Why would I lie about that?

RIGHT !!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

TO FUNNY !!!!
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:03:22 AM
OK, Fuzzy, Rosemary, I looked at the EXIF data for that photo, and yes, as Rosemary says, it was taken all the way back at the end of 2010. So it's not another smoking gun after all.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 05:05:53 AM
TK,

I just looked at FIG 6 as well.  There is definitely something amiss.  I too read about 10 volts at the gate of Q1 off the scope shot.  At Vbatt =72volts, Q1 should be capable of flowing much more current than is indicated by Rshunt with its gate at +10 volts.  I would expect to see a bit more than half a major division at the shunt (as the scope is set to 2V/div for Rshunt)  Around 2.5 minor divisions should be indicated.

Fig 3 and Fig 6 do not seem to correspond to the schematic/setup as drawn on this first paper. 

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:18:30 AM
@picowatt:

Rosemary said,
Quote
And the beauty of that little LeCroy is that there is no way it can do anything other than reflect the actual waveforms.  Well within it's competence.

Do you agree that that little LeCroy will always tell you the absolute truth?

Here's a little demo that I did some time ago, showing that getting the "absolute truth" from a scope ... depends on asking the correct questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 05:22:46 AM
MH,

I thought the issue regarding the FG ground connection to the Batt- instaed of Rshunt was known for some time.  I'll have to look at the scope shots, but keep in mind that while the DC bias current for Q2-Q5 does bypass Rhunt, for AC, the reactance of the Ciss for all 5 MOSFETs is a more robust path than the 50R of the gen.

So I do agree that a couple hundred milliamps more or less does bypass the shunt at DC, but when the circuit is oscillating, the error is reduced due a bit due to the Ciss reactance of the MOSFETs and the bulk of the AC current would pass thru the Ciss path.

At this time, however, I am attepting to understand what is going on with the simplest and most basic part of the circuit, Q1.  Why does it not appear to be turning on when the gate voltage is more than sufficiently positive to do so?  Can you tell where the FG output is connected?  Is it possible it is not connected as shown in the schematic?

PW 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 05:26:45 AM
@ALL,

Need to clean my "M" key...

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:27:21 AM
And yes you did too apologise to me about the inverted duty cycle of your first fiasco circuit, and fuzzy has reproduced that apology earlier in the thread. Of course you took back the apology later... but I'm still right.

And you admitted just recently that you were wrong about:

the 25.6 million Joule calculation
the provenance of the video
my annotated versions of your scope traces

but yes, you did NOT apologise for the pages and pages of abuse and denial that happened before you finally couldn't possibly deny reality any more.

And you are currently wrong about many other claims and statements you've made, too.... and I'm still right.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:28:28 AM
Guys - yet another miracle of misinformation.  These abound in ALL TK's videos.

@picowatt:

Rosemary said,
Do you agree that that little LeCroy will always tell you the absolute truth?

Here's a little demo that I did some time ago, showing that getting the "absolute truth" from a scope ... depends on asking the correct questions.

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

Look really CLOSELY at where he changes that probe position.  He is no longer even on the same RAIL.  He goes to an ENTIRELY difference position BEHIND a junction.  And then he continues to do what he does best.  Which is INSINUATE.  And here's what's particularly DISGUSTING is that he's insinuating that the measuring instrument itself is WRONG. 

We've all wised up to your tactics TK.  Long back.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:32:33 AM
And yes you did too apologise to me about the inverted duty cycle of your first fiasco circuit, and fuzzy has reproduced that apology earlier in the thread. Of course you took back the apology later... but I'm still right.

And you admitted just recently that you were wrong about:

the 25.6 million Joule calculation
the provenance of the video
my annotated versions of your scope traces

but yes, you did NOT apologise for the pages and pages of abuse and denial that happened before you finally couldn't possibly deny reality any more.

And you are currently wrong about many other claims and statements you've made, too.... and I'm still right.

My dear TinselKoala
IF it constitutes ABUSE that it is my opinion that your need to monopolise and usurp all authority on this thread is in the character of certain historical tyrants then indeed.  Consider yourself abused.  My own interpretation of the term is considerably broader to incorporate the extraordinary license that you seem to need to indulge with such excessive liberality EVERYWHERE - with no distinctions as to who gets spattered in its wake - and with a lack of professionalism that is astounding in it's lack.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:33:19 AM
@picowatt: at this point it seems impossible to determine anything, except by reference to the raw data: the photos and the scopeshots. Clearly, the "words" are not giving accurate information and there are so many versions that it's difficult to say what's what.
The two 5-mosfet diagrams both show the FG connected in the same place wrt the "rest of the circuit" other than the mosfets. And this seems to be borne out by the pegboard in the video.... for which the presented diagram in the video is again wrong as it shows only a single mosfet and the narration says that all five are strictly parallel...which isn't true.
But in the screengrab below you can see the red clip from the FG, it's connected to the Q1 gate and the "gang of four" sources. And the other FG lead is connected to the common ground bus with all the other probe grounds.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:35:34 AM
Guys - yet another miracle of misinformation.  These abound in ALL TK's videos.

Look really CLOSELY at where he changes that probe position.  He is no longer even on the same RAIL.  He goes to an ENTIRELY difference position BEHIND a junction.  And then he continues to do what he does best.  Which is INSINUATE.  And here's what's particularly DISGUSTING is that he's insinuating that the measuring instrument itself is WRONG. 

We've all wised up to your tactics TK.  Long back.

Rosie Posie

As usual, you lie about and misrepresent my work.

You need new glasses, too. That is one wire, less than 3 inches long, and it's connected to the transistor and the battery minus at one end and the CVR at the other. There are no other "junctions" in that wire other than those, and I do NOT go to an entirely different position behind a junction--- I simply go to the other end of that wire. And I do it twice, in full view, and at no time do my hands leave my wrists. Are you going blind?

And you need to learn that you know very little about using oscilloscopes, and apparently nothing about reading one, other than the numbers it gives you.

And who is this "we" you keep talking about? It sure looks to me like you have not a single supporter who can refute my facts. Eatenbyagrue says he supports you, but says he doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate the electrical facts (I think he does, or could learn the necessary stuff in an hour). Wilbyinebriated.... does he support you? I can never tell, he's so much like a broken phonograph record (remember those), but I don't really think he does, being as smart as he is and all. At least he's NEVER refuted a single fact from me, or CONFIRMED a single claim from you.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:39:12 AM
You need new glasses. That is one wire, less than 3 inches long, and it's connected to the battery minus at one end and the CVR at the other. There are no other "junctions" in that wire.

And you need to learn that you know very little about using oscilloscopes, and apparently nothing about reading one, other than the numbers it gives you.

NO TINSELKOALA.  It is not my eyesight that is at fault.  It's the positioning of that probe.  Guys - check it out for yourselves.  It's all there.
 ;D

Again,
Rosie Pose
the poser

and may I add - that IF Tektronix knew you were casting all these aspersions and so publicly on their machines - I think they'd see fit to challenge you in court.  One does not, as a rule, and so publicly - misrepresent the competence of a branded instrument.  But you would not know that lacking, as you do, any idea of professionalism.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:44:17 AM
Picowatt

May I impose on you to ignore this reference in its entirety.  It has no relevance to the circuit schematic referenced in the paper which gives the accurate position of the probes and the position of the shunt.  This 'mess' of probes was to enable two oscilloscopes each with 4 channels - some kind of position within the constraints of the space allowed on our circuit apparatus.

This, yet again, is TK's attempt to ALLEGE - incompetence.  If you could simply refer to our circuit schematic.  It is entirely representative.

Thank you
Rosemary
@picowatt: at this point it seems impossible to determine anything, except by reference to the raw data: the photos and the scopeshots. Clearly, the "words" are not giving accurate information and there are so many versions that it's difficult to say what's what.
The two 5-mosfet diagrams both show the FG connected in the same place wrt the "rest of the circuit" other than the mosfets. And this seems to be borne out by the pegboard in the video.... for which the presented diagram in the video is again wrong as it shows only a single mosfet and the narration says that all five are strictly parallel...which isn't true.
But in the screengrab below you can see the red clip from the FG, it's connected to the Q1 gate and the "gang of four" sources. And the other FG lead is connected to the common ground bus with all the other probe grounds.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 05:46:16 AM
TK,

Nice video, a little inductance goes a long way...  I at first thought that the ferrite in the probe was damping HF, nice the way you did a with and without...

So, regarding Q1 not turning on as one would expect based on the scope data, I do not know what to say.  If it was connected as in the first paper's schematic, Q1 must be defective for at least Test 1 and Test 6.  It appears to operate correctly for Test 2.

I wonder if the tests are in chronological order, or if Test 2 was performed prior to Q1 sustaining unnoticed damage or inadvertant loss of connection.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:51:05 AM
TK,

Nice video, a little inductance goes a long way...  I at first thought that the ferrite in the probe was damping HF, nice the way you did a with and without...

So, regarding Q1 not turning on as one would expect based on the scope data, I do not know what to say.  If it was connected as in the first paper's schematic, Q1 must be defective for at least Test 1 and Test 6.  It appears to operate correctly for Test 2.

I wonder if the tests are in chronological order, or if Test 2 was performed prior to Q1 sustaining unnoticed damage or inadvertant loss of connection.

PW

What do you say about Rosie Poser's characterization of that little video? Do you see what she claims to see? She's gone past delusion and is now hallucinating, I think.

The dates and times of Rosemary's scope traces are shown at the lower right corners. Presumably these times correspond to when the traces were obtained and stored in memory.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:52:11 AM
TK,

Nice video, a little inductance goes a long way...  I at first thought that the ferrite in the probe was damping HF, nice the way you did a with and without...

So, regarding Q1 not turning on as one would expect based on the scope data, I do not know what to say.  If it was connected as in the first paper's schematic, Q1 must be defective for at least Test 1 and Test 6.  It appears to operate correctly for Test 2.

I wonder if the tests are in chronological order, or if Test 2 was performed prior to Q1 sustaining unnoticed damage or inadvertant loss of connection.

PW

I have many, many many samples of that waveform as I downloaded it on a regular basis.  It is very easily replicated - except apparently by TK.  And I'm rather surprised at you picowatt that you endorse TK's comments regarding the very obvious repositioning of that probe on an alternate rail or on the junction of two rails.  His ability to 'film' anything at all is somewhat impaired.  Its a shame that he didn't focus on this with the same level of intensity as he managed in his earlier probe reference.  I'm inclined to think that this was required.

And back to that 'discrepancy' as you put it.  I would strongly recommend that you argue this in the face of the evidence when you do, and if you do replicate.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:53:20 AM
Rosemary, any scope engineer will tell you that EVERY scope can and will produce artefacts and garbage traces if not used properly. And you are not using your scopes properly.

Mentioning courts again? Feeling your grip on reality slipping away again? That's your usual fall-back tactic when your position becomes untenable.

And just imagine... TWO fancy scopes, both with math and integration capability... and you hook them up exactly in parallel so they show the same information. What a waste of oscilloscopes. You could have shown so very much more, had you only known what you were doing.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:56:31 AM
Quote
It is very easily replicated - except apparently by TK.

Lol. Where did this scope shot come from, I wonder?

 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
Rosemary, any scope engineer will tell you that EVERY scope can and will produce artefacts and garbage traces if not used properly. And you are not using your scopes properly.

Mentioning courts again? Feeling your grip on reality slipping away again? That's your usual fall-back tactic when your position becomes untenable.

And just imagine... TWO fancy scopes, both with math and integration capability... and you hook them up exactly in parallel so they show the same information. What a waste of oscilloscopes. You could have shown so very much more, had you only known what you were doing.

Are you implying that we did not apply the math function of the Tektronix?  Very interesting point INDEED - TK

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:58:57 AM
Lol. Where did this scope shot come from, I wonder?

 :-*

Indeed.  So do I.
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 06:00:45 AM
Rosemary:

TK's clip showing the pitfalls of measurement is simply something that you have never been able to understand.  He demonstrating how the inherent inductance in the wire can cause a voltage spike to appear.  That's something that's beyond your comprehension.

PW:

With respect, I am going to pass on the scope shot analysis - there is too much uncertainty in the air and I view it as a moot point.

Please note that just earlier tonight Rosemary denied that the circuit diagram that I marked up was the true circuit demoed in her clip.  Hence the annotated version of the screen capture of the bottom of the pegboard to prove that the diagram that I am using is indeed the correct schematic diagram for the circuit.  Hence you get the current flow bypassing the current sensing resistor in negative offset oscillation mode.

I agree that there is a more robust path through the CSR when in oscillation mode.  However, that current is due to an oscillator that is being powered by the current flow through, and the voltage drop across, the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array.  So the AC through the shunt resistor is derived from the net DC through the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs.

The negative half of the AC cycle times the battery voltage (which is also corrupted) appears to be power being returned to the battery.  That must be the root cause of the net negative wattage measurements by the scope averaging.  However, when the AC shows negative current, the actual current going through the function generator is almost certainly positive.  It would just have to be verified.

The true current waveform powering the circuit is most likely pulsing DC that is almost exclusively unidirectional.  The true voltage powering the circuit is certainly a steady DC without the wide voltage fluctuations shown on the scope capture.  If you could actually capture the correct data, everything would check out.

Ultimately, as has been mentioned several times before, this is an example of garbage-in garbage-out.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 06:02:29 AM
Are you implying that we did not apply the math function of the Tektronix?  Very interesting point INDEED - TK

Rosie Pose
You are applying it incorrectly. You are multiplying noise by nonsense, and you don't even account for the fact that your shunt is 0.25 Ohms, and you think that where the scope says "V V" it is saying "W". But it's not.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 06:04:04 AM
OK, Fuzzy, Rosemary, I looked at the EXIF data for that photo, and yes, as Rosemary says, it was taken all the way back at the end of 2010. So it's not another smoking gun after all.

Hi Tk,

I do see what your saying .... but I got the large image from Stefan's posting ...
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278553/#msg278553          Reply #149 on: March 19, 2011, 08:35:54 PM

Saying this is the set-up .....
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51602/

Rosemary posts a flurry of "SCOPE SHOTS" ( very interesting ones ) ......
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278651/#msg278651           Reply #169 on: March 20, 2011, 09:46:12 AM

Scope Shot "links" ....
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51610/
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51611/
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51612/
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51613/
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51614/
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51615/

Stefan makes a posting again ....
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278693/#msg278693           Reply #180 on: March 20, 2011, 04:49:51 PM

Commenting on the Scope Shots and "REFERENCING" the same set-up again .....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg278553#msg278553


Rosemary said nothing to Stefan correcting that image to the scope shots .... one mosfet or five mosfet's ?? Look at the scope shots and see if you think something is amiss.  ???

FTC
 ;)


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 06:07:50 AM
You are applying it incorrectly. You are multiplying noise by nonsense, and you don't even account for the fact that your shunt is 0.25 Ohms, and you think that where the scope says "V V" it is saying "W". But it's not.

WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE?  Your over reliance on this piece of misinformation is tedious - IN THE EXTREME.  IF there was ever any confusion it was NOT of my making but of your own.  I have NEVER been guilty of saying, implying or assuming that the math trace was doing anything more nor less than giving a product of the voltages.  IT IS USED AS A GUIDE ONLY.  When we get that negative product then - WE WILL ALSO, INEVITABLY AND OBVIOUSLY AND LOGICALLY - GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. 

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 06:28:01 AM
Indeed.  So do I.
Rosie Pose

Things move fast, Rosemary, and you are falling behind.

Don't you have some kind of TEST to be getting ready for?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 06:32:31 AM
Rosemary, do you see that "deskew" setting on the right of those shots that you posted and fuzzy just linked to? The setting that's set exactly to zero?

Do you know what probe skew is and what it can do to power measurements?

NO, in spite of several people and several documents telling you about it, you still refuse to learn.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Magluvin on April 06, 2012, 06:38:47 AM
Things move fast, Rosemary, and you are falling behind.

Don't you have some kind of TEST to be getting ready for?

Well, thats what I thought the reopening of this thread was all about. "RosePoynt"  But look what it has turned into. Just like it was before the thread was locked.

Mags
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 06:40:52 AM
WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE?  Your over reliance on this piece of misinformation is tedious - IN THE EXTREME.  IF there was ever any confusion it was NOT of my making but of your own.  I have NEVER been guilty of saying, implying or assuming that the math trace was doing anything more nor less than giving a product of the voltages.  IT IS USED AS A GUIDE ONLY.  When we get that negative product then - WE WILL ALSO, INEVITABLY AND OBVIOUSLY AND LOGICALLY - GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. 

Rosie Pose

In the video that you now disavow and repudiate... the presenter says, with your prompting, "five or  or six watts" and he's gesturing... and you are reading.... the multiplication numbers in the parameters box, where it says VV not W. And of course since you do not take into account the fact that your CVR is 0.25 ohms... you treat it as if it were one ohm and just ignore it. To get an instantaneous power trace, you need to divide the VOLTAGE DROP across the CVR by the resistance. I = V/R, remember? THEN you may multiply that by a correctly obtained and RELEVANT voltage trace. "Correctly obtained" means accounting for stray lead inductance AND PROBE SKEW which you have not done. In other words, you are multiplying garbage by noise and getting nonsense as a result.

TEST YOUR BATTERIES in any of the many ways that have been discussed here. SHOW YOUR WORK. Show that you have some minimal understanding of the circuit and how to make power measurements properly.

Or is something keeping you from PROVING ME WRONG? Wouldn't it be satisfying to you, to at least refute ONE thing?

Have you had somebody with eyesight explain that JT video to you yet? Because once again what you assert is simply incorrect.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 06:42:03 AM
WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE? Your over reliance on this piece of misinformation is tedious - IN THE EXTREME.  IF there was ever any confusion it was NOT of my making but of your own.  I have NEVER been guilty of saying, implying or assuming that the math trace was doing anything more nor less than giving a product of the voltages.  IT IS USED AS A GUIDE ONLY.  When we get that negative product then - WE WILL ALSO, INEVITABLY AND OBVIOUSLY AND LOGICALLY - GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. 

Rosie Pose

WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE?

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292765/#msg292765          Reply #1615 on: June 25, 2011, 09:28:30 PM

Quote

Yes Happy.  I can.  Unequivocally.  There is  NO drop in battery voltage.  And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery - and the mean average showed a negative product and the heat at 80 degrees C was sustained for a period of not less than 80 MINUTES - and then it was taken to an even higher value of 104 degrees C  over a period of another 8 or thereby minutes.  And then I HAD to stop that test, because the last ten minutes indicated that it was now running at runaway wattage values.  And, frankly, I was getting nervous.  But AT NO STAGE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE DEPLETED BY THE BATTERY.  EVERYTHING STAYED AT NEGATIVE VALUES.  Therefore UNEQUIVOCALLY NO ENERGY WAS EXPENDED FROM THE SOURCE.

Regards,
Rosemary



And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery


Liar .....   :o


FTC
 :P
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 06:42:31 AM
And MilesOffThePoint
I too could show how that voltage changes when I apply the probe to junctions - behind junctions - anywhere I chose.  It doesn't take genius. It only requires artifice.  It is used HERE to imply that the scope values are wrong.  I am ENTIRELY satisfied that LeCroy would have MUCH to say about this gross and deliberate distortion when it's intended to cast doubt on their machines' ability to compute a simple voltage.  OUR Scope probe positions are NOWHERE NEAR A JUNCTION.  There is therefore NO CONFUSIONS about our results.
Rosemary:

TK's clip showing the pitfalls of measurement is simply something that you have never been able to understand.  He demonstrating how the inherent inductance in the wire can cause a voltage spike to appear.  That's something that's beyond your comprehension.
And deliberate attempts to cast aspersions is absolutely NOT beyond my ability to understand.  The only difference here is that TK went to some considerable trouble to DENY the benefits in the Joule Thief.  There is no evidence of over unity that he can allow.  And he does not rely on science to deny it.  The difference is this.  No one, before me, and possibly Wilby - has challenged our TK on his manifold and deliberate misrepresentations.  Which makes me question rather urgently - what misrepresentations were applied to Mylow.  And what is still to come related to cold fusion.  And then WHY?  Has he really got all that investment in oil?  Or is he just as determined as you to put a lid on real scientific research - just for the hell of it?
PW:With respect, I am going to pass on the scope shot analysis - there is too much uncertainty in the air and I view it as a moot point.
LOL Why not just 'fess up and admit that was NOT your analysis.  You're not capable of that much.  My guess it was Poynty's contribution.  I doubt TK would manage it.
Please note that just earlier tonight Rosemary denied that the circuit diagram that I marked up was the true circuit demoed in her clip.
Really MileHigh?  I denied that it was demonstrated?  Or did I deny that it was the circuit that applied to our claim?  I'm not sure that our own circuit schematic has those shunts positioned as you've shown them in your reference to someone's?... not sure whose... annotations.
Hence the annotated version of the screen capture of the bottom of the pegboard to prove that the diagram that I am using is indeed the correct schematic diagram for the circuit.  Hence you get the current flow bypassing the current sensing resistor in negative offset oscillation mode.
It is CORRECT for the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our CLAIM is ONLY detailed in our paper.  That CLAIM does not rely on that ANNOTATED VERSION of your clip board.  If you don't understand this - then I'm satisfied that our readers most certainly WILL.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 06:43:20 AM
I agree that there is a more robust path through the CSR when in oscillation mode.  However, that current is due to an oscillator that is being powered by the current flow through, and the voltage drop across, the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array. 
Which means what?  Exactly?  Never seen so much twaddle following up on so much twaddle since you lapsed into an analysis of particles that respond to a gravitational field. 
So the AC through the shunt resistor is derived from the net DC through the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs.
?  ??  ???  Still utterly incomprehensible Miles&MilesOffTarget.  Please explain this.
The negative half of the AC cycle times the battery voltage (which is also corrupted)...
LOL.  I want to know about this 'corrupted' voltage.  Do you mean morally?  Or even significantly?   
appears to be power being returned to the battery.  That must be the root cause of the net negative wattage measurements by the scope averaging.  However, when the AC shows negative current, the actual current going through the function generator is almost certainly positive.
LOL.  And you determine this how?  By the waveform across Q1?  Q2?  Or just logically?
It would just have to be verified.
What would need verification?  Your analysis?  Or the waveforms?
The true current waveform powering the circuit is most likely pulsing DC that is almost exclusively unidirectional.  The true voltage powering the circuit is certainly a steady DC without the wide voltage fluctuations shown on the scope capture.  If you could actually capture the correct data, everything would check out.
LOL That would be nice.  I also want to see a steady DC current through Q1 or Q2 either during the on or off time of the duty cycle.  And no doubt - we we could get rid of all measuring instruments - all oscilloscopes - either my own, or TK's - anywhere and everywhere - then we'd be able to surmise that there's indeed a steady DC voltage and that these oscillations are figments of our imagination.
Ultimately, as has been mentioned several times before, this is an example of garbage-in garbage-out.
INDEED.  This is post of yours MileHigh is a PERFECT example of garbage - IN OR OUT.

 Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 06:45:20 AM
Rosemary,

Please, let's focus...

Do you agree that the voltage indicated by channel three in the scope shots depicts the voltage applied to the gate of Q1?

Do you agree that any positive voltage of +5 volts or greater applied to the gate of Q1 as indicated by the channel 3 in the scope shots should cause Q1 to turn on?

Why does Test 2/ FIG 5 indicate that Q1 is functioning correctly and as expected while Test 1/FIG 3 and Test 3/FIG 6 indicate that Q1 is not functioning correctly?

I would appreciate any answers you can give to these three questions.

PW


 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on April 06, 2012, 06:48:53 AM
@PW

With respect to possible blown MOSFETs see post #461:

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/461/

added

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.  Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required.  I'll let you know.  They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
  « Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie » 


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 06:54:41 AM
Quote
OUR Scope probe positions are NOWHERE NEAR A JUNCTION.  There is therefore NO CONFUSIONS about our results.

NO? Rosemary, ALL your scope probes are at or near junctions.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 06:57:12 AM
Well, thats what I thought the reopening of this thread was all about. "RosePoynt"  But look what it has turned into. Just like it was before the thread was locked.

Mags

My dear Mags

I assure you that if I did not see some considerable merit to allowing TK and Glen Lettenmaier and MileHigh to discharge their blunt ordinance from their depleting arsenals - then I would have been out of here - long back.  I rely on it.  For my own good reasons.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 07:02:34 AM
Evolvingape,

Thanks for that reply, it is indeed one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on as the gate drives in the scope shot are saying it should be.

However, I was hoping Rosemary may have another explanation.

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 07:03:49 AM
NO? Rosemary, ALL your scope probes are at or near junctions.

AGAIN TK.  You are referring to the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our claim is detailed in our paper.  It is not the data that is used in relation to the demonstration.

I think that if you applied yourself you may even understand this.  Or are you simply hoping to confuse our readers?  And you're hoping that they're all idiots?

Rosie poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 07:06:44 AM
Here's the comment Stefan left on my JT video showing the effect of inductance on the trace:

Quote
  Well done TK,
yes, with high frequency every cm of wire counts as an inductance,
so it is really advised not to use croco-cables as these add too much inductances.
So better solder all your circuits with short leads and use stranded cables for better RF conduction.
Regards, Stefan.
    overunitydotcom (http://www.youtube.com/user/overunitydotcom)   1 year ago


I don't think he saw what you think you saw, Rosie poser. And nobody else who watches that video sees what you think you see; they see what I am presenting.

BESIDES... it's all there in living color. Build the thing yourself and show a DIFFERENT RESULT, if you think I'm "faking" something.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 07:10:49 AM
AGAIN TK.  You are referring to the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our claim is detailed in our paper.  It is not the data that is used in relation to the demonstration.

I think that if you applied yourself you may even understand this.  Or are you simply hoping to confuse our readers?  And your hoping that they're all idiots?

Rosie poser
So you are now claiming that you used a DIFFERENT APPARATUS, not just a different circuit, and you positioned your probes.... where?

If "our readers" are confused.... let's ask them by whom.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 07:14:25 AM
People,

This is getting ugly....

@Rosemary,

OK, I understand we are only to focus on the two papers, correct?

That is what I am trying to do.  I have 20 IRFPG50's on there way here via a slow boat.  I take it replicators are to focus only on the data in the two papers.  That is what I am trying to do.

Once we were all told that all other data only "relates" to your claim (not exactly sure what that means), I switched my focus to the papers.  I began reading the first paper and the scope shots and noted a discrepancy as to the operation of Q1.

Before reviewing the data further, or performing a replication, I would appreciate some explanation as to why Q1 is not performing as it should in Test1 and Test 3.

We can discuss at some point the finer points of Q2-Q5 operation while i noscillation, but surely you and everyone else has a good understanding as to the operation of Q1.

A positive voltage applied to the gate of Q1 equal to or greater than +5 volts should cause Q1 to turn on.  Are we in agreement at least with regard to this point?

PW



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 07:17:33 AM
Evolvingape,

Thanks for that reply, it is indeed one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on as the gate drives in the scope shot are saying it should be.

However, I was hoping Rosemary may have another explanation.

PW

Picowatt - it is a truth that this circuit was both developed and demonstrated rather extensively at one of our local colleges.  It had the hands on input and advice from some highly skilled people - but unfortunately none in power engineering.  If there were an explanation then it would, by now, have been to hand.  There was a serious proposal to 'disprove' our claim which will, eventually be required.  And when and if we either get this comprehensively demonstrated with the involvement of academics or alternatively when we get this paper published with review - then I will certainly advance this apparatus to them.

Meanwhile we are relying on the well established scientific protocols that allow a claim to be thoroughly investigated and researched which can only happen with impartial and judicious consideration of the facts that have been put forward.  And with as wide an engagement of replicators - as possible.  We are all well aware of the unfortunate consequences to a debunk as applied to our poor Fleischmann and Pons who were the unhappy victims of some rather excessive denials that have, subsequently, had to be withdrawn.  And while they were the victims - much more seriously compromised were our global interests related to the urgent need for new energy sources.  In the same way TinselKoala and Glen Lettenmaier and MileHigh have been denying our own claim based on the wrong references and on their badly applied, so called, replications.  TK hasn't even noticed the issues.  If he has he's been to some lengths not to reference them.

And it is absolutely immaterial what their opinion of my abilities are.  I am only anxious to get all our claims thoroughly tested and demonstrated and proven.  But then I rely on some attention to our actual claim and not the assumptions related to our claim.  As that would, indeed, be a waste of everyone's time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 07:23:34 AM
Rosemary:

At this point I can't really be bothered to respond in detail to your last two postings to me.  When you get high-strung in your responses and start accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about it's a sure sign that you are totally stressed out over your proposition.

Everything I said I stand by.  Your histrionics in your postings to me are rooted in the fact that you can't understand my technical points about your circuit.

I am satisfied that I have proved that you completely pulled the wool over your own eyes and spent months and months analyzing a circuit that in fact was not doing what you thought it was doing.

If I had magically appeared in your lab while your testing was going on it would have taken me a maximum of a few days to understand your circuit,undo all of the false assumptions, and redo the measurements and show you the truth.  You would have been dumbstruck.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 07:30:04 AM
@Mags... how long has it been since Rosemary has even _mentioned_ performing a draw-down or Dim Bulb test, other than to say that she won't be doing one as long as there are Trolls on the Internet?

And yet.... whenever I can get away from correcting her mistakes and lies and sheer nonsense, I try to encourage her to TEST.
I have even stated that it's OK for her to use the FG, as long as she is showing a HOT LOAD over 190 degrees C, using a positive going gate pulse as she has shown IN THE PAPERS , in that poorly insulated container, for 48 hours. Then do a simple dim bulb test, not even using any test equipment or anything fancier than a clock and a webcam. She has never said WHY she won't do this simple test.

But we know why.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 07:36:54 AM

OK, I understand we are only to focus on the two papers, correct?

That is what I am trying to do.  I have 20 IRFPG50's on there way here via a slow boat.  I take it replicators are to focus only on the data in the two papers.  That is what I am trying to do.

Once we were all told that all other data only "relates" to your claim (not exactly sure what that means), I switched my focus to the papers.  I began reading the first paper and the scope shots and noted a discrepancy as to the operation of Q1.

Before reviewing the data further, or performing a replication, I would appreciate some explanation as to why Q1 is not performing as it should in Test1 and Test 3.

We can discuss at some point the finer points of Q2-Q5 operation while i noscillation, but surely you and everyone else has a good understanding as to the operation of Q1.

A positive voltage applied to the gate of Q1 equal to or greater than +5 volts should cause Q1 to turn on.  Are we in agreement at least with regard to this point?

PW

Picowatt - I am delighted that you're preparing to investigate this for yourself as, from what I've read,  I'm inclined to trust to your impartiality and expertise.  You really do not need 20 of those IRFPG50's - but possibly 5.  In any event - that's your choice.

Provided only that you have some kind of 'offset' function on your signal generator - then you'll be able to understand how it is that we 'block' the flow of current during the period when there's voltage applied to the gate of Q1 or anywhere at all.  I have always understood that this is well known as we also used it in the application of our earlier circuit variation - albeit without the same range of efficiency that our function generator offers.  The function generator also offers a wider choice of duty cycle settings which - at it's outside extreme can switch every 3 minutes.  This is useful.

Test 1 - figure 3 - depends on the widest duty cycle setting possible - and the explanation for this, as detailed in the 2nd part of that two part paper - depends on the fact that no current is delivered by the battery but that the circuit components do have a transfer of the potential difference from the battery supply.  Then the only other variation from any standard models at all - is the proposal that current flow actually comprises a 'charge' which can only be valid if there is some particle related to this.  And we propose that this is indeed there  - in any magnetic field.  The effect is fully qualified if the particle is a tachyon - velocity of 2C - with a dual charge rather than a neutral charge.  That's broadly described in that second part of that paper.

Kindest regards again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 07:38:31 AM
@picowatt: I am glad that someone is going to build the actual circuit, besides me ... and I've built ALL of the various variations discussed here. I hope you are aware of the Tar Baby thread and all the testing I've done there.

Could you give us a rundown on the equipment you intend to use? What do you think of the proposed "dim bulb" test for Ainslie's claims? Why do you think she isn't just rushing to get it or some other good test done, and end all this useless debate?

I would be especially interested to know if you find any significant differences between the IRFPG50's performance in the circuit (whichever one you might choose to use) and the IRF830a's performance.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 07:39:23 AM
Rosemary,

It is also a truth that when the scope shots indicate that the gate voltage applied to Q1 is positive, Q1 should turn on.

As the inventor and claimant, I would think this simple fact would merit more discussion from you than the answers given.  I am not discussing your claim, the oscillations, the battery charging, or anything nearly that "complex".  I am for now only simply focused on why Q1 turns on properly in one of three tests and not two others.

The simple fact is that the scope shots are saying that in Test 1 and Test 3 the gate drive indicated is more than sufficient to turn on Q1.  The Rshunt channel is showing that Q1 is not turning on.  This cannot be.

I am not trying to debunk anything, I am trying to read your paper.  Schematics and scope shots are read by the likes of me as is text by most everyone.

The only possible explanation I can arrive at as to why Q1 is not turning on, if the schematic and scope shots are indeed correct, is that Q1 is defective or has been inadvertantly disconnected during the two tests in question.

If you have another explanation, I would like to hear it.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 07:40:17 AM
@Mags... how long has it been since Rosemary has even _mentioned_ performing a draw-down or Dim Bulb test, other than to say that she won't be doing one as long as there are Trolls on the Internet?

And yet.... whenever I can get away from correcting her mistakes and lies and sheer nonsense, I try to encourage her to TEST.
I have even stated that it's OK for her to use the FG, as long as she is showing a HOT LOAD over 190 degrees C, using a positive going gate pulse as she has shown IN THE PAPERS , in that poorly insulated container, for 48 hours. Then do a simple dim bulb test, not even using any test equipment or anything fancier than a clock and a webcam. She has never said WHY she won't do this simple test.

But we know why.

My dear TinselKoala
I do not need your permission to test.  Nor do I need to use your test parameters.  My only concern is that I'd be anxious to not only see the conclusion to your test but some evidence that you've EVER actually tested our circuit.  And then I'd like to have some kind of access to this 'report' that you tell us has been made available?  Could you provide a link?

Regards,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 07:40:54 AM
Quote
The effect is fully qualified if the particle is a tachyon - velocity of 2C - with a dual charge rather than a neutral charge.  That's broadly described in that second part of that paper.

Look out, picowatt... she's about to explain why her "thesis" is superior to QED.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 07:46:30 AM
My dear TinselKoala
I do not need your permission to test.  Nor do I need to use your test parameters.  My only concern is that I'd be anxious to not only see the conclusion to your test but some evidence that you've EVER actually tested our circuit.  And then I'd like to have some kind of access to this 'report' that you tell us has been made available?  Could you provide a link?

Regards,
Rosie Pose
No, Rosie, all you need to do is TEST, somehow or other. But we know you aren't going to, and you will blame me for it. But how can I POSSIBLY be preventing you from testing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 07:54:19 AM
Rosemary,

Please let me know if you do not intend to answer any of my questions directly.  I will stop asking.

I was glad you showed up tonight as I hoped you would discuss the Q1 issue with me.

Trust me, I fully understand the operation of my eight function and programmable waveform generators as well as all my other signal sources (pulse, sine, RF and HD vid).

I also fully understand that if apply a zero or negative voltage to the gate of Q1 relative to its source, Q1 will not turn on.  But I also understand that my scope channel connected to the gate of Q1 will show that my generator is applying a zero or negative voltage to the gate of Q1.

The scope shots for Test 1 and Test 2 do not show this.  They show a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 threshold voltage and Q1 should/must turn on.  The Rshunt channel does not reflect this.  It can only be an error.

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 07:54:52 AM
Rosemary,

It is also a truth that when the scope shots indicate that the gate voltage applied to Q1 is positive, Q1 should turn on.
What do you want me to comment on?  All I know is that the 'offset' is able to override the applied signal to frustrate the delivery of current in its entirety.  If and when you replicate you will see that your own signal generator should have the same 'function'.  I am not sure how this is managed.  Only that it is indeed - manageable.  And with all the hands on involvement of those many many experts in this technology - you are absolutely the very first person to find this to be a discrepancy.  I simply can't argue.  I'll try and find out - during the course of the day - if this is indeed an exceptional event.  But I assure you that no-one before you has even mentioned the fact.  Therefore my assumption has always been that this is precisely why that function was included in the first place.  In other words it determines the amount of applied current from the source by imposing an opposite signal to the applied energy source - with a varying and optional level of that amount.

As the inventor and claimant, I would think this simple fact would merit more discussion from you than the answers given.  I am not discussing your claim, the oscillations, the battery charging, or anything nearly that "complex".  I am for now only simply focused on why Q1 turns on properly in one of three tests and not two others.
Again.  It is simply the rather prosaic application of the 'offset' adjustment applied by function generator.  I have no other explanation.  I can adjust that offset through an extensive range to restrict or allow the flow from the supply. 

The simple fact is that the scope shots are saying that in Test 1 and Test 3 the gate drive indicated is more than sufficient to turn on Q1.  The Rshunt channel is showing that Q1 is not turning on.  This cannot be.
Same question - same answer.  Sorry.  I'll see if I can do better by asking around. 

I am not trying to debunk anything, I am trying to read your paper.  Schematics and scope shots are read by the likes of me as is text by most everyone.

The only possible explanation I can arrive at as to why Q1 is not turning on, if the schematic and scope shots are indeed correct, is that Q1 is defective or has been inadvertantly disconnected during the two tests in question.
I assure you that they are not.  The transistors have not been compromised - in any way at all.

Picowatt.  When you test this you'll see it for yourself.  I have always understood that this overriding function of the 'offset' was widely understood and widely applied.  I assure you our papers have been vetted by some highly esteemed academics.  If I didn't know it would compromise their reputations by association - I'd even mention which.  And no-one - at all - has questioned this aspect of the test.  What's significant is that notwithstanding this restriction to the flow of current we are able to generate that oscillation at all.  I would have thought?

Anyway.  I'll get back when I know better how to answer you here.  Right now I have absolutely no idea why you're surprised at this.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 07:57:53 AM
Look... she is able to hook her probes up to this circuit without placing them on or near junctions, she says. That can only mean that there ARE no junctions.... a neat trick.

And, by some "offset button" magic, her function generator is able to make a gate drive trace on the oscilloscope that is DIFFERENT from what the mosfet it is driving is seeing, even though the mosfet, the FG, and the probe leads are all hooked up at the same JUNCTIONS.

Or, alternatively... it means that she is once again just making stuff up out of her head.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 08:01:44 AM
Quote
Again.  It is simply the rather prosaic application of the 'offset' adjustment applied by function generator.  I have no other explanation.  I can adjust that offset through an extensive range to restrict or allow the flow from the supply. 

Guppies in a fishbowl.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 08:08:27 AM
Rosemary,

To turn off Q1, the generator output must be below the threshold voltage of Q1.  SImply stated, it must be at zero or a negative voltage.  That "zero" or "negative" voltage would then be indicated by the channel 3 scope traces.  The channel 3 scope traces indicate that Q1 has to be turning on, as its gate voltage is well in excess of its threshold voltage.  The Rshunt channel says that Q1 is not turning on in Test 1 and Test3 as it should/must do as per its indicated gate drive.

If you have no explanation, than just say so.  And please do "ask around".  I think all with a basic understanding of the operation of a MOSFET will have to agree that something is wrong with Q1, the schematic, the scope shots or something, because Q1 is not turning on in these two tests when indeed it should.  It is performing exactly as one would predict in Test 2, and the scope depicts the expected data.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 08:31:57 AM
Rosemary,

To turn off Q1, the generator output must be below the threshold voltage of Q1.  SImply stated, it must be at zero or a negative voltage.  That "zero" or "negative" voltage would then be indicated by the channel 3 scope traces.  The channel 3 scope traces indicate that Q1 has to be turning on, as its gate voltage is well in excess of its threshold voltage.  The Rshunt channel says that Q1 is not turning on in Test 1 and Test3 as it should/must do as per its indicated gate drive.

If you have no explanation, than just say so.  And please do "ask around".  I think all with a basic understanding of the operation of a MOSFET will have to agree that something is wrong with Q1, the schematic, the scope shots or something, because Q1 is not turning on in these two tests when indeed it should.  It is performing exactly as one would predict in Test 2, and the scope depicts the expected data.

PW

My dear picowatt

This is the 7th time that you have posted this same question with an over reliance on certain assumptions that you have made which I shall be at some pains to dispel during the course of the day.  This night alone there have been a total of 42 new posts to this thread which would require me to have the typing and reading speeds of superwoman - to address.  Added to which you actually - during the rather repetitious demands to have this question answered - even complained, rather rudely that I'm 'ignoring' your question.  I've only just read THAT post and it seems that you consider me guilty of only answering this same question only three times - with varying levels of failure. 

I assure you that the offset of most signal generators are well able to restrict the flow of current.  I've now taken the trouble to check some wiki references to this.  Perhaps you could take the trouble yourself.  I will, however - make sure that I get this confirmed by an acknowledged expert - if I can manage it during the course of the day.  And then I will indeed get back to you.  With pleasure.  The applied signal at the gate is as shown.  The applied signal from the offset overrides it.  But let me get this confirmed.  In which case I've answered you at the first answer.  And it seems that you have managed - together with our other three members here - to expand this thread by another 4 pages or so with some rather repetitious posts.  I was rather hoping that at least you were both impartial and polite.  It seems not.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 08:47:07 AM
And guys lest this post of mine fall out of focus let me get this back on the table.

Evolvingape,

Thanks for that reply, it is indeed one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on as the gate drives in the scope shot are saying it should be.

However, I was hoping Rosemary may have another explanation.

PW

Picowatt - it is a truth that this circuit was both developed and demonstrated rather extensively at one of our local colleges.  It had the hands on input and advice from some highly skilled people - but unfortunately none in power engineering.  If there were an explanation then it would, by now, have been to hand.  There was a serious proposal to 'disprove' our claim which will, eventually be required.  And when and if we either get this comprehensively demonstrated with the involvement of academics or alternatively when we get this paper published with review - then I will certainly advance this apparatus to them.

Meanwhile we are relying on the well established scientific protocols that allow a claim to be thoroughly investigated and researched which can only happen with impartial and judicious consideration of the facts that have been put forward.  And with as wide an engagement of replicators - as possible.  We are all well aware of the unfortunate consequences to a debunk as applied to our poor Fleischmann and Pons who were the unhappy victims of some rather excessive denials that have, subsequently, had to be withdrawn.  And while they were the victims - much more seriously compromised were our global interests related to the urgent need for new energy sources.  In the same way TinselKoala and Glen Lettenmaier and MileHigh have been denying our own claim based on the wrong references and on their badly applied, so called, replications.  TK hasn't even noticed the issues.  If he has he's been to some lengths not to reference them.

And it is absolutely immaterial what their opinion of my abilities are.  I am only anxious to get all our claims thoroughly tested and demonstrated and proven.  But then I rely on some attention to our actual claim and not the assumptions related to our claim.  As that would, indeed, be a waste of everyone's time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 08:54:08 AM
Golly MileHigh
Rosemary:

At this point I can't really be bothered to respond in detail to your last two postings to me.  When you get high-strung in your responses and start accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about it's a sure sign that you are totally stressed out over your proposition.

Everything I said I stand by.  Your histrionics in your postings to me are rooted in the fact that you can't understand my technical points about your circuit.

I am satisfied that I have proved that you completely pulled the wool over your own eyes and spent months and months analyzing a circuit that in fact was not doing what you thought it was doing.

If I had magically appeared in your lab while your testing was going on it would have taken me a maximum of a few days to understand your circuit,undo all of the false assumptions, and redo the measurements and show you the truth.  You would have been dumbstruck.

MileHigh
I love your assumptions.  They're all delivered with a reckless freedom of fact and a wild application of fantasy.  I pride myself on NOT being emotionally concerned about these posts by you trolls.  Believe me I welcome them all.  I would have LOVED to see some technical issues raised.  I keep hoping.  I am glad that you believe that you or I have pulled the wool over yours/my eyes.  And I'm REALLY sorry that you can't magically appear in our lab while we're testing.  That would have been nice.  Considering how far you can project into space - couldn't you at least try and reach across our Atlantic?  As I see it there's not that much more that's separating us.  Then you could deliver your explanations and then too I would be 'dumbstruck'.  How nice would that be?

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
Rosemary,

I did not intend to come off rude.  In between posting I am machining parts on the lathe whilst checking on some client circuits that are burning in on the bench.

I asked three simple yes or no questions and received no direct answer to them.  It is frustrating.  If you want replicators to take the time to replicate your circuit, or evaluators to evaluate, it seems only fair that we be allowed to ask you questions and should expect to receive direct answers to those questions.

For the umteenth time, I fully understand that you can set the FG output to a positive value to turn on Q1 and turn off Q2-5 or alternately set the FG for a negative voltage to turn off Q1 and bias Q2-Q5 ito inear operation.

What I am asking about is why the Test1 and 2 scope shots reflect that the generator is outputting a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 gate threshold while the Rshunt traces for those tests indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  All is as it should be with Test2.

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 09:05:56 AM
Howdy members and guest,

As you all know Rosemary as usual isn't being forthcoming in any explanations for the errors being found in the documentation that has been provided as a CLAIM of a device with a COP>INFINITY

There has been stipulations for further testing by Rosemary from members at OU and the OWNER and moderator here and as always refuses to do any as it will discredit her "THESIS".

As you all know this for Rosemary is only about the THESIS and could care less about a actual attempted replication and if one would come around like the TK "Tar Baby" with unfavorable results it's immediately deemed JUNK by the Inventor of the COP>INFINITY device whom has no formal electronic training and has no professional input on electronic circuitry.

Therefor in all likelihood this and the other threads will be deleted in a few days from Rosemary's lack of professionalism in answering any questions and doing the required additional testing again for fear of discrediting her THESIS.

I have been able to figure out how to make a PDF file of the thread and will be storing a copy of it and the other threads earmarked for deletion for my future reference, anyone interested on how it was done can PM me for details on how to make a PDF.

I am attaching a copy of page #121 as a example of what it would look like.  (  another_small_breakthrough_on_our_NERD_technology_121_.pdf )


FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 09:12:16 AM
Rosemary,

For the umteenth time, I fully understand that you can set the FG output to a positive value to turn on Q1 and turn off Q2-5 or alternately set the FG for a negative voltage to turn off Q1 and bias Q2-Q5 ito inear operation.

What I am asking about is why the Test1 and 2 scope shots reflect that the generator is outputting a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 gate threshold while the Rshunt traces for those tests indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  All is as it should be with Test2.

PW

Actually it's the 8th time you've asked this - not the 'umpteenth'.  And here's my answer again.  I think my 5th attempt.  The applied signal from the generator is exactly as shown on the waveform.  The waveform that we can't access, which is from the offset and which presumably is buried within the generator itself - OVERRIDES this signal.  Therefore the signal at the gate is applied.  The waveform is shown.  The signal from the offset is applied.  That waveform is not shown.  Don't ask me why?  I don't know why?  However, I suspect what's happening is that the negative signal is then applied to the drain rail which overrides the applied signal at the gate.  But I don't know for certain.  I can only surmise.  And it seems coincident with Wiki's explanation.  However, if this is the case, then the applied offset signal which is entirely negative - also ENTIRELY restricts the flow of current from the battery.  And that applied signal at the gate which is represented as that waveform you keep referencing is there.  But is overridden.  I am reasonably certain that the waveform at the gate of either Q1 or Q2 is represented accurately as that rather zut instrument of ours is also ENTIRELY dependable and fully calibrated.

Rosemary

Changed the explanation here and there.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 09:37:23 AM
Rosemary,

When you adjust the offest control on an FG, I assure you, that adjustent is reflected at the output of the generator.  The negative or positive offset as selected by the offset control, adds a negative or positive voltage to the generator's output.  Connecting a voltmeter or scope to the generator's output whilst turning the offset control plus or minus will directly indicate this action.  On a connected scope, the trace will go up and down to indicate the positive or negative offset value selected.  On a voltmeter, the indicated voltage will swing positive and negative as well while the offset control is adjusted.

Is there anyone on your team with an electronic background that replicator's can ask questions?

PW.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 09:50:41 AM
Welcome, picowatt, to a long line of people who thought they could get coherent, straightforward responses from RA, or get her to follow a line of reasoning.

It is easier for her to believe that the FG can somehow sneak that "offset" signal past the oscilloscope and get it into the circuit without the scope noticing, than it is for her to believe a professional with years of experience and a rack of FGs on his bench.

And of course when I show a video of just what you describe, circuit response to varying FG offset... she will accuse me of faking it and will not back down no matter what. Why not? Because it will involve her admitting that there are great problems with the figures shown in the paper.

I'm processing and uploading that video, and another, now.

ETA: Monitoring the mosfet drain voltage is obviously the way to see what the mosfets are doing. To omit this important bit of data from the scope shots in the papers.... well, would you have done that, picowatt? The drains are monitored in Rosemary's video demo, but of course that only _relates_ to her claims, it doesn't actually contain them.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 09:54:23 AM
*Sigh...*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 10:12:26 AM
MH,

ditto... it's late...

TK,

If you would, hook up a small light bulb, a milliammeter, or your B2B LED's, show us some current out of that FG as well...

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 10:17:35 AM
@All,

I see my typing skills are inverse to my tired factor.

Maybe I'll figure out how to edit posts at some point.

PW

Never mind, I just figured out the use of "modify".... and fixed a typo...
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 10:36:27 AM
MH,

ditto... it's late...

TK,

If you would, hook up a small light bulb, a milliammeter, or your B2B LED's, show us some current out of that FG as well...

PW

I have done so with the cheapo DMM; it puts about 90-110 mA into the circuit when it's set high enough to turn the mosfet(s) on with that little oscillation on the bottom of the gate trace like her scopeshots show. The FG's voltage output is noticeably pulled down when connected to the circuit; simply measuring the input resistance of Tar Baby across where the FG hooks to the circuit, unpowered and disconnected from all test equipment completely, gives me a value of 34.7 Ohms using a Simpson DMM.
Look back here in a few minutes and I'll have some pix attached.
OK, here they are. The overview shows the DMM ammeter hooked in series with the FG's "positive" lead. (But I got the ammeter polarity backwards, it should be indicating -0.11 A instead of +, I think.) The other lead from the DMM goes to the +FG input on the board. The scope shot shows the operating condition, top trace the FG gate drive signal (note the spikies from the added lead length and the DMM) at 5 V/div, bottom trace the mosfet common drains at 20 V/div, zero levels indicated (except the top trace has drifted from the marker a bit; it's really at zero at the top), timebase 0.2 millisec/div.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 10:59:55 AM
And before y'all start razzing me about the rat's nest wires, here is where I started with this thing... I found the wire lengths were necessary for the oscillations with the bigger mosfets, so I cut wires approximately as long as Ainslie's in the video demo, and the RATs nest is the result. It works great!!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 11:19:11 AM
Effect of FG Offset on Circuit Response. Long and lazy, um uh sorry about the light.

Note: this video does not represent anything, it only relates to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXAqEinb8YU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXAqEinb8YU)

YMMV, but not by very much, unless you are using an old WaveTek Model III or something.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 02:40:06 PM
Effect of FG Offset on Circuit Response. Long and lazy, um uh sorry about the light.

Note: this video does not represent anything, it only relates to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXAqEinb8YU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXAqEinb8YU)

YMMV, but not by very much, unless you are using an old WaveTek Model III or something.

Very intriguing video TK.  Masterful misdirection.  Not only did you not bother to show the trace across the shunts but you were careful to IMPLY that you could only duplicate our numbers when you used the AC mode on your scope.  Fortunately our LeCroy downloads show very clearly that ALL our settings are at DC.  And it also measures the effects of the offset.  You are very good at this TK.  All that 'play play' I'm drunk - and 'all is off the cuff' and nothing is rehearsed - and the lighting and still bad?  What an EFFECT!  I'm intrigued.  How much do you get paid for all this?

Guys - this video is just about on a par with that amazing number where he implied that the joule thief claims are bogus because the scope can't manage to keep to the same measurement.  Please simply refer to our waveform downloads.  The channel settings are CLEARLY MARKED DC

Regards to you all - TK included.  And guys, wise up to these games that TK is playing.  Their consequences are scarey if you're inclined to believe all those insinuations.  No wonder he has to film everything in half light.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 02:55:48 PM
And before y'all start razzing me about the rat's nest wires, here is where I started with this thing... I found the wire lengths were necessary for the oscillations with the bigger mosfets, so I cut wires approximately as long as Ainslie's in the video demo, and the RATs nest is the result. It works great!!

TK - YOU NEED A BIGGER BOARD.  And you need to show us where everything connects.  That's unless we're actually meant to either understand your argument or even believe it.  And colour code your 'FET wires - at LEAST.  Or something.  Or try and show that they're properly connected.  It's a MESS.  And you also need to show us your results.  Frankly I don't think you DARE show us.  I think we're all a little bored with all your insinuations.  You rely on the profound assumption that everyone watching your videos are IDIOTS. Else why would you insult us all with that kind of video.  I'm reasonably certain that the ONLY people who will recommend your efforts are those same people who post here with a compulsion that is way beyond reasonable.

Rosie Pose

ADDED
YMMV - INDEED.  Which stands for You're Misdirected Magnificently and Vastly.  Very entertaining little exercise.  And I am beginning to really  appreciate the hard work that you need to apply to try and kill off our modest little claims here TK.  I wonder why?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on April 06, 2012, 03:28:03 PM
Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

I will not be conducting any tests at all while there is any reminder at all - on this forum - of your excessive indulgence in slander.  What you are hoping is that I will engage in any way at all with any of your demands.  I dare not.  It would be tarnished by association.

Rosie Pose

I have every intention of doing a battery draw down test.  I do not know whether I'll be able to conduct that test through this forum.  That's in Harti's hands.  And it's heavily dependent on certain editorial requirements related to this thread - and, indeed, to another thread here on this forum.

Rosie Posie

Rosemary when will you be doing these tests ?

Hello MileHigh

I assure you that we have a level of support that is both surprising and welcome.  The only joke is the transparent efforts by you and TK to detract from this technology.

"guys" Where are you ? Rosemary needs you to show that you can make her claim work.Come on "guys"She only has TK and she doesn't like him he can show her circuit doesn't work as she claims.
Oh no "guys" have you all realized that her circuit doesn't work like she claims.

Well "guys" Pretty obvious why she is avoiding doing any new tests and not answering questions properly, reminds me so much of dodgy politicians who make promises they can't keep.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 03:49:47 PM
Rosemary when will you be doing these tests ?

"guys" Where are you ? Rosemary needs you to show that you can make her claim work.Come on "guys"She only has TK and she doesn't like him he can show her circuit doesn't work as she claims.
Oh no "guys" have you all realized that her circuit doesn't work like she claims.

Well "guys" Pretty obvious why she is avoiding doing any new tests and not answering questions properly, reminds me so much of dodgy politicians who make promises they can't keep.

Hello powercat

Always nice to be reminded how anxious you are to get us to prove our battery draw down tests.  Believe me so am I.  But I think we should dedicate this thread to an exercise in 'trollmanship' as applied to those such as yourselves.  My prize would be to see it include some actual raw data from TK's DEBUNK courtesy his Tar Baby.  Sorely lacking.  All we have are a series of claims about how he has done this - through twenty video downloads and a report.  Or it may be 20 pages of report and video downloads.  The report is not available...YET - as TK puts it.  Hopefully it will be - in the fullness of time.  Otherwise I may post my results and TK will come in from the rear and CLAIM that they're incorrect as he can't duplicate them.  That would be a shame.  Let me - at its least - have the benefit of seeing where the bar is set.  Then I'll have a 'target'.  And if that means that TK qualifies for Poynty's over unity prize - in his name or in Humbugger's name - and we don't - then so be it.

And I think it's long overdue that the full force of the troll technique be entirely exposed.  Otherwise it can be used again and again.  And that would not be in the interests of progressing over unity or new energy or anything at all through open source.  I'm rather committed to the fond belief that this is still not only possible - but very desirable.  Open source is certainly our only voice for progressing a science that has been widely branded 'pathological'.  Our media wont touch this with yours.  And even a small voice is better than no voice at all.  Else we'll all, forever, be at the mercy of handful of objectors who have an easy time of it when they decide to dismiss scientific evidence.  Thus far they've managed this very well.  And the losers here include the public in it's widest and global sense of the word.  And that probably includes you too. 

Unless - God forbid - he's actually trying to imply that we have NOT got COP infinity.  Or indeed - any efficiency at all.  Not sure what he's claiming.  Not ... yet. Golly.   8)

Rosie Pose 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: The Boss on April 06, 2012, 03:58:05 PM
 
Where is the test?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 04:28:13 PM
PW and Rosemary,

May I interject in your exchange?

FTC and TK have shown that there is a discrepancy in the circuit schematics in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf and ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf.

In the former, Q1 is labeled as the right MOSFET. In the latter, Q1 is labeled as the left MOSFET.

Rosemary, which diagram indicates the correct positions for Q1 and Q2-5 relating to the claim?

The circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf, or the circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
@picowatt: The low resistance reading I gave you last night, across where the FG hooks to my circuit... is a result of a partially blown mosfet. The Q1 mosfet evidently was damaged during all those offset excursions just before I went to test the current, and while it still switches, it is obviously leaky. And I don't have a spare PG50 to stick in  there.

The funny thing, ha ha, is that I can remove this mosfet and it makes no difference in the performance with a negative going drive pulse. And of course I can sub one of the Q2s and run 3 there and 1 as Q1 and it works fine with both polarity drive pulses.

Now watch Rosemary get all excited and abusive.

Oh... I see she didn't wait, she's already all excited and abusive.

And of course, as usual, she is interpreting my videos from a position of complete wilful ignorance.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 04:43:45 PM
Note ITEM 11. It's clear that you use AC coupling at least some of the time.

And..... for the LeCroy traces in your "paper"... you don't NEED to use AC coupling because you aren't even displaying the right trace.

The POINT of my demonstration of AC coupling was to illustrate how one can use larger vertical gain settings to display more detail in the PORTIONS OF INTEREST when the absolute voltage levels aren't needed. But Rosemary is so paranoid that EVERYTHING has to be about her. Again... this shows that she knows nothing about using oscilloscopes except how to turn one on and how to read glowing numbers out of little boxes.

And that's why she doesn't believe my demonstrations. There are no glowing numbers in little boxes, so how could anybody do anything at all?

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 04:56:57 PM
TK - YOU NEED A BIGGER BOARD.  And you need to show us where everything connects.  That's unless we're actually meant to either understand your argument or even believe it.  And colour code your 'FET wires - at LEAST.  Or something.  Or try and show that they're properly connected.  It's a MESS.  And you also need to show us your results.  Frankly I don't think you DARE show us.  I think we're all a little bored with all your insinuations.  You rely on the profound assumption that everyone watching your videos are IDIOTS. Else why would you insult us all with that kind of video.  I'm reasonably certain that the ONLY people who will recommend your efforts are those same people who post here with a compulsion that is way beyond reasonable.

Rosie Pose

ADDED
YMMV - INDEED.  Which stands for You're Misdirected Magnificently and Vastly.  Very entertaining little exercise.  And I am beginning to really  appreciate the hard work that you need to apply to try and kill off our modest little claims here TK.  I wonder why?

You are such a lying clown.

The only idiot watching my videos is YOU, and you've proven it many times with your lies and misinterpretations.

 I DON'T NEED A BIGGER BOARD. You need a smaller board. My wires ARE color coded AND properly sized: you will note that all the gate wires are small gauge and colored; ALL the drain wires are heavy and GREEN, ALL the source wires are heavy and GREY, the sockets are labelled and numbered, the back side of the board as been clearly shown, all the wiring hookups are shown. It is EASIER for someone skilled in the art to see what IM doing than to see what YOU are doing -- because I SHOW THE CORRECT DIAGRAMS.

Where are your COLOR CODED WIRES? Did this LACK of color coding have anything to do with the REPEATED SERIES OF COSTLY ERRORS you made ?

Gaah. What a useless waste of time. Is she watching my videos on a cellphone or something?  It's like arguing about the color of the sky with a blind person who insists it's pink, because her theory of the universe says it must be.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:01:51 PM
Your "modest little claims" are lies and mistakes and aren't modest at all, you hypocrite.

 And there is NOBODY ANYWHERE preventing you from performing any one of several different tests except you yourself. JUST IGNORE ME if you don't like what I'm doing.

IGNORE ME and do your battery rundown tests.

JUST DO IT. I've managed to do a LOT of whatever you want to call it while we have been having this useless conversation.... why haven't YOU been doing anything but avoiding the issue?

I know why. And the rest of us "guys"  know why too.  You have never intended to do any kind of test that has the potential for actually falsifying your claims. You've had OVER TEN YEARS to do it, and you are still just yammering about stuff that you know very little about.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 05:06:53 PM
Do you see? She makes a bunch of bunkum statements about me or my work that are DEMONSTRABLY WRONG, like the wire color coding or the JT hookups, or a dozen others, and when she is refuted she just makes a page of irrelevant verbiage to bury her errors and hope that nobody notices that she was WRONG YET AGAIN.

Got a coherent answer for picowatt yet, Rosie Poser? No, of course not. You have, in addition to magic mosfets, a magic function generator offset knob too. At least when I see an anomalous instrument reading, like my low resistance input figure from last night, I recognize it and track down the source of the reading, and admit when I've got a damaged component. YOU just take all your instrumental readings at face value since you don't understand them anyway.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:11:17 PM
PW and Rosemary,

May I interject in your exchange?

FTC and TK have shown that there is a discrepancy in the circuit schematics in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf and ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf.

In the former, Q1 is labeled as the right MOSFET. In the latter, Q1 is labeled as the left MOSFET.

Rosemary, which diagram indicates the correct positions for Q1 and Q2-5 relating to the claim?

The circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf, or the circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf?

Hi Poynty.   It makes not a blind bit of difference as it comes to the same thing.  But the Q2 on the right of the schematic has been corrected and replaced on the left on a corrected paper submitted for review.  This was pointed out by the editor and corrected.  But either way - as TK has shown - it gives precisely the same result.

Thanks Poynty - if you can correct the copy on your published - then do so.  If not - it really doesn't matter.  It doesn't constitute a misrepresentation - but an erroneous transposition - as picowatt explained.

Kindest regards,
Rosie 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2012, 05:13:05 PM
My dear TK

are you STILL insinuating that we're using the scope in AC mode?

Rosie Poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 05:40:11 PM
@.99,

Please do interject when you can!  I have been operating under the assumption that Q1 is the single common source configured MOSFET and that Q2 (or Q2-Q5) are the common gate configured "parallel array" MOSFETS.

I do not know if you have read thru all this, my condolences if you have, but specifically, I was asking about an apparent discrepancy in the first paper Test 1-3 scope shots.

Referring to the first paper, in Fig 3/Test 1 and Fig 6/Test3 the scope shots seem to indicate that during the positive voltage portion of the FG output, there is more than sufficient gate voltage applied to Q1 to turn it on, but the Rshunt trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.

In Fig 5/Test 2, the indicated gate drive as well as the indicated current thru Rshunt are in very good agreement with the IRFPG50 data sheet and in this test, Q1 operates as one would expect and predict.

I can only assume that Q1 was defective or somehow disconnected in test 1 and 3 as per the data provided from the scope shots.

Any comments from you with an alternate explanation would be most welcome.

PW
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 06:01:30 PM
@TK,

I was really hoping your new video would be an "FG 101" vid, with just the FG connected via a BNC to a DC scope channel while tweaking the offset control, with or without a waveform present.  This to demo that the scope will indeed indicate/reflect the setting/action of the FG's offset control.

PW



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 06:11:22 PM
@Rosemary,

It seems a bit of a contradiction that you dismiss all of TK's efforts as meaningless and deceptive, but then reference his work regarding the operation of the two schematics with the MOSFET's labeled differently as proof that it does not matter how it is labeled. 

Am I correct in thinking that Q1 is the single MOSFET and Q2 (or Q2-5) are the paralleled array?

I glanced at the second paper and thought it was describing an alternate circuit set-up.  Please confirm that the Fig 1 schematic in the first paper (Experimental Evidence...) is indeed the correct schematic.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 06:46:19 PM
PW,

From Rosemary's response to my post, I'd say yes, the correct diagram is the one shown in the first paper "ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf".

As such, I agree that the CSR would normally indicate a current with the high Q1 Gate voltage shown in the scope trace.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 06:57:43 PM
FTC,

In terms of saving threads in PDF format, you simply use your browser to "print to PDF". Of course you need some PDF program installed, such as PDF Creator to do so. Also, you need to do this for every single page of the thread, so you would end up spending some time on this and merging a number of pdf files afterwards.

The job would be made a little easier if you go to your profile settings, Look and Layout, and set your "posts per page" to 50.


.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 07:07:00 PM
.99,

Thanks for the confirmation regarding the correct schematic.  That has been my assumption.

I don't know what else to say regarding the operation of Q1 in Test 1 and 3 other than Q1 must have been defective or somehow disconnected in those two tests.  I can see no alternate explanation (assuming the schematic and scope connections are correct).

Depending on the condition of Ciss/Coss and the body diode, a defective Q1, as in open circuit, might have only minimal impact on the oscillation phase when Q2 is biased on by the FG.  It does, however, cause one to question the accuracy of the additional data provided.   

Are you still planning on a replication of sorts?

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: powercat on April 06, 2012, 07:38:23 PM
Hello powercat

Always nice to be reminded how anxious you are to get us to prove our battery draw down tests.  Believe me so am I.  But I think we should dedicate this thread to an exercise in 'trollmanship' as applied to those such as yourselves.  My prize would be to see it include some actual raw data from TK's DEBUNK courtesy his Tar Baby.  Sorely lacking.  All we have are a series of claims about how he has done this - through twenty video downloads and a report.  Or it may be 20 pages of report and video downloads.  The report is not available...YET - as TK puts it.  Hopefully it will be - in the fullness of time.  Otherwise I may post my results and TK will come in from the rear and CLAIM that they're incorrect as he can't duplicate them.  That would be a shame.  Let me - at its least - have the benefit of seeing where the bar is set.  Then I'll have a 'target'.  And if that means that TK qualifies for Poynty's over unity prize - in his name or in Humbugger's name - and we don't - then so be it.

And I think it's long overdue that the full force of the troll technique be entirely exposed.  Otherwise it can be used again and again.  And that would not be in the interests of progressing over unity or new energy or anything at all through open source.  I'm rather committed to the fond belief that this is still not only possible - but very desirable.  Open source is certainly our only voice for progressing a science that has been widely branded 'pathological'.  Our media wont touch this with yours.  And even a small voice is better than no voice at all.  Else we'll all, forever, be at the mercy of handful of objectors who have an easy time of it when they decide to dismiss scientific evidence.  Thus far they've managed this very well.  And the losers here include the public in it's widest and global sense of the word.  And that probably includes you too. 

Unless - God forbid - he's actually trying to imply that we have NOT got COP infinity.  Or indeed - any efficiency at all.  Not sure what he's claiming.  Not ... yet. Golly.   8)

Rosie Pose

Interesting how you're attacking the majority of people who post here and calling them trolls, when you are the one wasting everybody's time with your BS claims and avoiding doing any new tests.

In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 07:43:14 PM
PW,

Yes, I plan on building my circuit to produce a similar negative Wattage computation for battery power.

My circuit is based on Rosemary's, but wouldn't constitute a replication.

Here is my circuit and thread:

http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/ (http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/)

Updated circuit and simulations are in second last post.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 07:44:25 PM
In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.

I hope to.  :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 07:56:13 PM
FTC,

In terms of saving threads in PDF format, you simply use your browser to "print to PDF". Of course you need some PDF program installed, such as PDF Creator to do so. Also, you need to do this for every single page of the thread, so you would end up spending some time on this and merging a number of pdf files afterwards.

The job would be made a little easier if you go to your profile settings, Look and Layout, and set your "posts per page" to 50.


.99

Hi Poynt99

Thanks for the posting on the schematic problem of Rosemary's .... I can't understand why any documents that was sent to a accredited journal or magazine would have so many mistakes in it, especially going for a peer review from engineers and academics with possible publication. It seem as you know there's a excuse for every mistake made and nothing a professional would do, then never to correct the mistakes means to me there's a reason Rosemary does this and it's not being honest or honorable in any way.

I found it easy for the PDF to actually do a "copy drag" and a "paste" to Open Office as a document then exporting to a PDF takes a few minutes for each page loading up in the export mode and save it with a file name, it all works as long as the members up-loaded documents don't get deleted at OU ( PDF, Images or photos ) and you get around 14 to 16 PDF pages per one OU page.

http://www.openoffice.org/ (http://www.openoffice.org/)  " The Apache Software Foundation"  Open Office the Free and Open Productivity Suite

This method is FREE and works great .... I have 150 GB storage at my web site for the future publications in mind.

Regards,
Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 08:03:15 PM
,99 and PW:

I looked at the schematic in the "ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf" version and I am wondering if that paper is based on the same setup as demonstrated in the video.  The question being is the function generator grounded before the CSR or at the negative terminal of the battery?  Certainly in the demo clip the function generator is grounded directly to the negative terminal of the battery which we know is a mistake.

I whipped up a "double CSR" graphic for consideration.  An interesting test could be done.  You could connect one scope channel to the original CSR (CSR1) and a second scope channel to the "new" CSR  (CSR2).  Then simply invert the CSR2 channel and compare the waveforms.  The new CSR2 is between the battery negative terminal and the common ground point.

CSR2 shows the true current flow through the battery whereas CSR1 does not.

In negatively offset oscillation mode:

CSR2_inverted will be positive for clockwise current (battery discharging)
CSR2_inverted will be negative for counterclockwise current (battery charging)
CSR1 will be positive for oscillator output positive voltage  (current from oscillator to ground) ("looks like" clockwise current)
CSR1 will be negative for oscillator output negative voltage  (current ground to oscillator)  ("looks like" counterclockwise current)

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 08:05:07 PM
I can't seem to get my graphic image to appear in the posting and I can't download it.  I am wondering if it is a problem with the forum software.  The new CSR2 is between the battery negative terminal and the common ground point.

Poynt:  Modifying the message doesn't seem to work either.   Perhaps I went past an image uploading and display quota or something.

Fuzzy:  I just removed all of the spaces and replaced them with underscores and still no luck.

Poynt:  Your pdf attachment doesn't work either!  lol
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 08:10:30 PM
Try modifying your message and reattach the png file.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 08:11:55 PM
I can't seem to get my graphic image to appear in the posting and I can't download it.  I am wondering if it is a problem with the forum software.  The new CSR2 is between the battery negative terminal and the common ground point.

Hey MH,

The same thing happened to TK last night in a posting of his .... sometimes I found it's the format of the file "name" using spaces or something not recognized by the forum software.

FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 08:15:09 PM
FTC,

Here is what it looks like with 25 posts saved using PDF Creator (free).

.99

PS. I think PDF Creator does a nicer/better job than Open Office.  :)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/)

ETA: I removed the pdf because it is being corrupted via the upload.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 08:31:08 PM
FTC,

Here is what it looks like with 25 posts saved using PDF Creator (free).

.99

PS. I think PDF Creator does a nicer/better job than Open Office.  :)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/)

Hi .99

I use to use that but if some one opening the PDF only has "Adobe" for file reading like most users ..... it won't open the file up and you get a error message, like I just got.

So everyone would have to have "PDF creator" .... whom Adobe hates.

Best,
Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 08:49:25 PM
I can't seem to get my graphic image to appear in the posting and I can't download it.  I am wondering if it is a problem with the forum software.  The new CSR2 is between the battery negative terminal and the common ground point.

Poynt:  Modifying the message doesn't seem to work either.   Perhaps I went past an image uploading and display quota or something.

Fuzzy:  I just removed all of the spaces and replaced them with underscores and still no luck.

Poynt:  Your pdf attachment doesn't work either!  lol

Hi MH,

The other option is if you have Microsoft "Paint" open your file there and do a "save as" to another image format .... JPEG or TIFF, that might work   ;)

Fuzzy
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 09:02:43 PM
MH,

I have always considered that if the FG signal common was connected to Bat- instead of to the CSR, that only the DC bias when Q2 is biased on would be unaccounted for by the CSR readings.  In hindsight, one must also add an AC path whose reactance is equal to the FG test lead capacitance as well as the FG out to FG chassis capacitance (which I would suspect would be much lower than the test lead capacitance).

Although this FG/FG lead capacitance AC path would still be less robust than the path provided by the MOSFET's Ciss reactance, the AC and DC current bypassing the CSR does begin to add significant errors.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 10:05:02 PM
Hi .99

I use to use that but if some one opening the PDF only has "Adobe" for file reading like most users ..... it won't open the file up and you get a error message, like I just got.

So everyone would have to have "PDF creator" .... whom Adobe hates.

Best,
Fuzzy
 ;)

Glen,

I am using Adobe Reader 8 and it opens just fine. Otherwise I would have noticed that.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 10:06:37 PM
PW:

I agree that some extra AC will go through the FG path too.  The bottom line is that either you look at the true battery current or you don't.  The operating assumption is that Rosemary didn't have the slightest clue that during the testing at the university that this could have been happening.  When she is presented with a new concept that she perceives will possibly detract from her claim she will resist it vociferously.  It has taken a few months for her to even concede that current could be passing through the function generator and bypassing the current sensing resistor.  Even now she is uncomfortable with the idea and she is still outright rejecting the annotated schematic diagram that I have posted a few times.

Just to speculate on the goings on at the university lab in South Africa, I have to surmise that there were some half-hearted participants that assisted her.  So I doubt that anybody from the university that was truly competent in electronics was deeply involved in her project.  They would have spotted the problems right away and when they saw the "secret hidden" true schematic they would have told her that the MOSFETs were wired in a nonsensical way.  In the same way, sometimes Rosie trumpets her first allegedly "COP 17" circuit as being "endorsed" by real-world engineers from major industrial companies including ABB.  My interpretation of that is that an engineer from ABB passed by one day and took a cursory look at her circuit and nodded and smiled and shook her hand.  Rosie is spinning that as an "official endorsement."  Again, I am just speculating.

TK:

I watched your clip.  Just one correction about what transpired in the clip.  When you do the full positive offset of the waveform you say "all of the MOSFETs are on now."  What really transpired is that only one (?) MOSFET was on, not all, but the low and the high components of the offset waveform were both high enough in potential such that the single MOSFET stayed on all the time.  I don't think you were making an outright mistake, it's more associated with how people can be prone to making mistakes when they are recording themselves and trying to rattle off a bunch of technical details at the same time.  It's not easy to make a clip.

I have felt the same phenomenon myself many times.  It's kind of a "walk, film, and chew gum at the same time" thang....

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 10:16:22 PM
And do it all in the wee hours no less....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 10:44:56 PM
Stefan's forum is corrupting the uploaded files, that's why my pdf won't open.  :o

And that's most likely why your image won't upload either MH.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 10:51:11 PM
Glen,

I am using Adobe Reader 8 and it opens just fine. Otherwise I would have noticed that.

Hi Poynt,

Do you also have PDF creator on the same computer ? I removed the application totally and only have Adobe reader X ( 10.1.2 ) ... the latest download. I think Adobe reader 8 is several years old and had security problems.  ;)

Glen
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2012, 11:26:21 PM
I have PDF Creator set up, yes. That's how I converted the forum pages to PDF.

The reason the pdf file I created won't open is most likely because the forum is corrupting the file.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 06, 2012, 11:50:52 PM
I have PDF Creator set up, yes. That's how I converted the forum pages to PDF.

The reason the pdf file I created won't open is most likely because the forum is corrupting the file.

I attached it again (same file) and now it opens.

Hi Poynt,

I can see it now .... It looks nice showing the whole page and not just the thread using the program you suggested ...  ;)

Glen
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 12:30:05 AM
Blast from the past from a few hours ago...

See post #1849 for more info....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 12:31:53 AM
Reason for the addition of the second CSR.....   The function generator ground bypasses the original CSR.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 12:59:02 AM
Howdy members and guests,

Here is the beginning of the thread ..... PAGE 1 ..... POST 1 ..... by Rosemary Ainslie.


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

Rosemary's Quotes -
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.
 

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. 




I think this would be a "peachy" test for Rosemary to repeat for us all !! It sounds so simple to do .... even with "DEAD" batteries !!  :o


Cheers,
FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 02:20:41 AM
Rosemary:

In looking through your one of your reports again and seeing the scope shots of the battery voltage it's pretty shocking to see how much variation there is in the battery voltage.  Poynt discussed this with you many times but I don't think he ever got through to you.

Standard practice is to use capacitors to help smooth out the power supply voltage especially when you are dealing with switching circuits.  That means were the power came into your pegboard you should have had a large capacitor, perhaps 10,000 uF directly across where the battery connections are made to the pegboard.  You then connect perhaps two more capacitors across the power entry point (i.e.; in parallel with the 10,000 uF capacitor), say a 1000 uF and a 10 uF capacitor.

Then you take your oscilloscope probe and check to see if the capacitors are doing a decent job to stabilize the battery voltage while the circuit is running.  If there was someone in your lab that saw that you were making this power switching circuit and saw the distance between your battery bank and the board, they should have said something.  If really appears that you were left to your own devices or were working with a few students that didn't know any better or they were disinterested.

Without some kind of power decoupling you got those nightmarish voltage swings.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 02:25:33 AM
Rosemary:

In looking through your one of your reports again and seeing the scope shots of the battery voltage it's pretty shocking to see how much variation there is in the battery voltage.  Poynt discussed this with you many times but I don't think he ever got through to you.

Standard practice is to use capacitors to help smooth out the power supply voltage especially when you are dealing with switching circuits.  That means were the power came into your pegboard you should have had a large capacitor, perhaps 10,000 uF directly across where the battery connections are made to the pegboard.  You then connect perhaps two more capacitors across the power entry point (i.e.; in parallel with the 10,000 uF capacitor), say a 1000 uF and a 10 uF capacitor.

Then you take your oscilloscope probe and check to see if the capacitors are doing a decent job to stabilize the battery voltage while the circuit is running.  If there was someone in your lab that saw that you were making this power switching circuit and saw the distance between your battery bank and the board, they should have said something.  If really appears that you were left to your own devices or were working with a few students that didn't know any better or they were disinterested.

Without some kind of power decoupling you got those nightmarish voltage swings.

MileHigh

Actually MileHigh our object is precisely to generate those 'nightmarish' voltage swings.  We can use it to good effect.  I agree with you.  It relies on inductance in all the circuit components including the wire. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 02:49:36 AM
@MH:
you are right, the full positive or full negative signal only turns on the corresponding mosfet(s). It is when the bipolar pulse swings +/- at least 5 v that every transistor turns on. The working ones, that is. Thanks for pointing it out. Usually I monitor heat but now that the circuit has changed _again_ it's easy to get confused.

@PW: I have done the extremely basic FG offset demo some time ago; I'll see if I can find it, it's contained in one of the TarBaby clips somewhere I think. I set the FG to "DC" output and show how the offset puts it positive or negative as desired, and of course the same with a waveform.
That won't prove anything though: there's no incentive for the offset to "sneak past" the oscilloscope unless a NERD circuit is hooked up.

BTW, I've built "every" variation that seems to be extant, including a couple of my own.

The single mosfet circuit shown on the early Ainslie photo
The single mosfet circuit shown (but NOT demonstrated) in the video
The 5x parallel mosfet circuit that was "claimed" to be the one shown in the video
The actual circuit shown in the video, with and without gate input resistance
The actual circuit shown in the video, but with the FG minus at the common minus, rather than where it is shown on the diagrams
The circuit given in the first unpublished paper
and now
The circuit given in the second unpublished paper.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 03:02:42 AM
Rosemary:

Quote
It relies on inductance in all the circuit components including the wire. 

That's not going to fly.  You can't present a report on an experiment and say, "we need long wires between the power source and circuit board."  Honestly, you are just 'absorbing' the wild voltage swings into your argument as a coping strategy.

The "battery voltage" makes no sense and the current waveform in negative oscillation mode makes no sense.  If TK and other replicators move forward and do some more testing you will probably see these things explained.

Your fundamental argument is that your circuit is using the "potential only" as supplied by the batteries and the net current and net power consumption of the device is negative while it heats up the load resistor (and the MOSFETs big time!).

Your entire argument is centered on what the DSOs are telling you.  You have been deluged with information recently telling you that your DSO input data is incorrect.  It's NOT the DSO's themselves, they are working properly, it's the data that you are presenting to them that's the issue.

You didn't understand how the circuit actually worked when you did your testing and wrote up your reports.  You have been learning how it actually works whenever there is an active thread.  It feels like WWII and we are fighting up the boot of Italy, fighting for each olive orchard one by one.  But the Allies will win in the end.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 03:18:34 AM

BTW, I've built "every" variation that seems to be extant, including a couple of my own.

The single mosfet circuit shown on the early Ainslie photo
The single mosfet circuit shown (but NOT demonstrated) in the video
The 5x parallel mosfet circuit that was "claimed" to be the one shown in the video
The actual circuit shown in the video, with and without gate input resistance
The actual circuit shown in the video, but with the FG minus at the common minus, rather than where it is shown on the diagrams
The circuit given in the first unpublished paper
and now
The circuit given in the second unpublished paper.

Hi Tk,

This schematic is one that is posted on Rosemary's "BLOG" ..... did you do this one ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) their so mixed up ?  ;)
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html

I added mine with the mosfet diagram and the internal diode .... ( RA_5_Mosfet_Switching_Circuit_Analysis_011_.JPG )


FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 03:28:00 AM
@fuzzy: yeah, pretty much. Those sim diagrams make explicit the lead inductances and some capacitances in the circuit. I still haven't gotten my inductance meter delivered so I can't measure the inductances of my leads and loads yet. I'd be surprised if they were much different than the values in the sims... I cut and estimated based on your advice and looking at the pictures, but there is still a lot of inductance in the NERD battery leads that I don't have... hence the little brown inductor experiment. When the present circuit switch happened, swapping Q1 and Q2 positions, I had to extend the leads of the lone mosfet to aid its oscillations.
Also I only have 4 batteries so I can't operate at 72 volts.... yet.

(I can't read the value of R1, the series gate resistor, on the diagrams. I have one of 0.3 Ohms on TarBaby which I usually use but don't have to. It really doesn't seem to make much difference.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 07, 2012, 03:33:41 AM
TK,

The resistor value of R1 in that diagram is 22 Ohms I believe.

The thing is, you can't exceed that in the simulation, or it doesn't oscillate. I used 2 Ohms in my simulation.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 03:35:31 AM
@fuzzy: yeah, pretty much. Those sim diagrams make explicit the lead inductances and some capacitances in the circuit. I still haven't gotten my inductance meter delivered so I can't measure the inductances of my leads and loads yet. I'd be surprised if they were much different than the values in the sims... I cut and estimated based on your advice and looking at the pictures, but there is still a lot of inductance in the NERD battery leads that I don't have... hence the little brown inductor experiment. When the present circuit switch happened, swapping Q1 and Q2 positions, I had to extend the leads of the lone mosfet to aid its oscillations.
Also I only have 4 batteries so I can't operate at 72 volts.... yet.

(I can't read the value of R1, the series gate resistor, on the diagrams. I have one of 0.3 Ohms on TarBaby which I usually use but don't have to. It really doesn't seem to make much difference.)

Hi TK,

SO ... the illustrated BLOG example (D) drain, (S) source and (G) gate five (5) mosfet connections you have tried ....

Ok ... I'm wrong .... it was the new one from  ..... Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure  ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )

FTC
 ;)


EDIT - corrected added new found schematic  ::)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 03:37:07 AM
Heh... I had not yet seen the image below. This is the simulation behaviour of the circuit above, from Rosemary's blog that FTC linked above.
The trace shows the start and finish of a set of oscillations at high resolution time base. Look at the way the oscillations taper on and taper off.... interesting isn't it?

Now take a look at this video I made, BEFORE I saw the image below, just to show off the delayed trigger timebase on my HP180a oscilloscope. See anything interesting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKaY_ZGr0jY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKaY_ZGr0jY)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 07, 2012, 03:41:34 AM
Yes TK.

That gradual ON and OFF is what I mentioned earlier on about your wave forms getting close, but without that characteristic. You didn't understand what I meant then, but you do now.

With the use of your delayed time base, the evidence is there, you got it. ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 03:53:31 AM
I understand more and more every day, but less and less of it makes any sense at all.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 07, 2012, 04:46:54 AM
Rosemary,

I see at the beginning of this thread that some tests were performed using three drained batteries and a single MOSFET in only the Q2 position.

I have a few questions regarding those tests.

1.  Do you know what the bulb number was that was used to discharge the batteries?

2.  When you say the batteries were discharged until the bulbs went out, was this completely out as in cup your hands around them or observe in the dark "out" or until they were just too dim to observe in a normally lit room?

3.  Was the somewhere around 10.06 volts figure given the voltage of the batteries with the bulbs still connected or was this the open circuit voltage taken after disconnecting the bulbs?

4.  If the answer to 3 above is the open circuit voltage, was the voltage measured fairly soon after the bulbs were disconnected?

Thanks,
PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 05:06:48 AM
Hi guys,

As we all know now there is two (2) device schematics shown in the two (2) papers that Rosemary sent out to some accredited journal or magazine for a peer review from both engineers and academics with a possible publication of the "CLAIM" of COP>INFINITY on her invented device(s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus  ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_Q2_x4_Q1_.PNG

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure  ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is one "SCOPE SHOT" a ..... "LeCroy" 50s - 500k - 4 Channel - Dated 2011/03/02 - Time 07:54:13  shown in both papers .... SCOPE_SHOT_ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_FIG3__ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_FIG2_.JPG

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus  ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) Figure #3
Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure  ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) Figure #2

Given there are two different device schematics one for each paper is this "SCOPE SHOT" wave form even possible for both papers or only one paper ?  ???

Cheers,
FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 07, 2012, 05:46:18 AM
FTC,

Both schematics should perform similarly.  There would be differences in current handling capability for different portions of the FG waveform and possibly some AC differences (osc freq, etc).  But essentially they would perform the same.

The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the FG output (common source) will turn on when the FG output swings positive moreso than the MOSFET threshold voltage.  The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the CSR (common gate) will bias on into a "linear" region of operation when the FG output swings negative.

The scope shot you posted is the same as from Test 1/FIG 3 in the first paper and was discussed somewhat last night.  The indicated gate drive during the positive portion of the FG output is more than sufficient to turn on Q1 (schematic of first paper) while the CSR trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  One must assume that Q1 was either defective or disconnected during the test performed for this scope capture.

Long story short, both schematics should perform similarly.  Also, we have been assured that the second paper schematic was merely a typo and that the first paper schematic is the correct one.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 05:54:39 AM
you are right, the full positive or full negative signal only turns on the corresponding mosfet(s). It is when the bipolar pulse swings +/- at least 5 v that every transistor turns on.
Really TK?  And you deduce this how?  From your test results?  Could you perhaps show us your report on this?  Alternatively could you give us another link to one of your 'educational' videos?  Alternatively could you substantiate this argument with reference to our own waveform downloads that show the applied voltage of the signal during the oscillation phase?  Or alternatively could you post a picture of your own related to this waveform during the oscillation phase?  Something?  Anything at all?  Otherwise your more discerning readers will all be rather disinclined to treat your statement with any of the 'gravitas' that you seem to be expecting.
Usually I monitor heat but now that the circuit has changed _again_ it's easy to get confused.
Really TK?  You monitor that heat?  Or do you just casually reference it here and there when you imply and infer that you ONLY get the heat when you 'twiddle' with the 'knobs' as you put it?  And all before it gets into oscillation moed?  Is there a report out on the 'results' of any of those experiments?  Taken over time?  Or do you confine your observations to the 10 minutes of badly filmed film as the 'test period under review'.  In which case any conclusions that you may draw can only be based on inference and speculation.  I'm not sure that qualifies as a scientific argument.
I have done the extremely basic FG offset demo some time ago; I'll see if I can find it, it's contained in one of the TarBaby clips somewhere I think. I set the FG to "DC" output and show how the offset puts it positive or negative as desired, and of course the same with a waveform.
Again.  I think we all need to see this.  Else it will seem like nothing more than an idle boast presented in the rather forlorn hopes that any such video exists.  And when you do eventually manage to give us a link - then perhaps you could also ensure that your camera is aimed at those 'knobs' you're turning at the same time as the 'screen' that you're showing.  That way we'll all be more inclined to believe you.
That won't prove anything though: there's no incentive for the offset to "sneak past" the oscilloscope unless a NERD circuit is hooked up.
On the contrary.  I'm sure we'll all be really interested to see how you manage this.  I certainly would.  Just ensure that you're plausible at the kick off - with clear filming and good lighting - and less reference to your preferred brand of lager. It's as tedious as your continual 'asks' for pickles when you posted as Hamburger or Humbugger.  One or the other.
BTW, I've built "every" variation that seems to be extant, including a couple of my own.
The single mosfet circuit shown on the early Ainslie photo
The single mosfet circuit shown (but NOT demonstrated) in the video
The 5x parallel mosfet circuit that was "claimed" to be the one shown in the video
The actual circuit shown in the video, with and without gate input resistance
The actual circuit shown in the video, but with the FG minus at the common minus, rather than where it is shown on the diagrams
The circuit given in the first unpublished paper
and now
The circuit given in the second unpublished paper.
We all know this.  Your attempts at our previous circuit were dogged with the persistent lack of the appropriate waveform.  And these latest are bereft of any decent report on your results.  If there is something that yet remains hidden - then I can understand these boasts of yours.  Perhaps you could make a concession to open source and can point us to a link?  That would be very nice.

Rosie Poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 06:17:06 AM
That's not going to fly.  You can't present a report on an experiment and say, "we need long wires between the power source and circuit board."  Honestly, you are just 'absorbing' the wild voltage swings into your argument as a coping strategy.
No MileHigh.  We don't 'present a report' based on any such conclusions.  And we are not 'absorbing' wild voltage swings as a 'coping strategy' neither for our argument - nor for our tests. 

The "battery voltage" makes no sense and the current waveform in negative oscillation mode makes no sense.  If TK and other replicators move forward and do some more testing you will probably see these things explained.
I agree.  Which is why we propose that it's an anomaly and that we propose our experts determine what gives.  Which is also why we wrote those papers.

Your fundamental argument is that your circuit is using the "potential only" as supplied by the batteries and the net current and net power consumption of the device is negative while it heats up the load resistor (and the MOSFETs big time!).
Absolutely.  This is entirely correct.

Your entire argument is centered on what the DSOs are telling you.  You have been deluged with information recently telling you that your DSO input data is incorrect.  It's NOT the DSO's themselves, they are working properly, it's the data that you are presenting to them that's the issue.
Not actually MileHigh.  Those DSO's are collating the data with no extraneous interference from ourselves.  And I have NOT been deluged with information.  I've been presented with some clumsy disinformation that was insultingly transparent in its argument coupled by an insulting lack of proficiency in its delivery.

You didn't understand how the circuit actually worked when you did your testing and wrote up your reports.  You have been learning how it actually works whenever there is an active thread.  It feels like WWII and we are fighting up the boot of Italy, fighting for each olive orchard one by one.  But the Allies will win in the end.
It is indeed a world war that's raging.  But it's a war of scientific evidence versus scientific assumption.  And I most certainly do learn how these strategies are applied - with every new thread.  But the theme is mostly the same.  I'm accused of stupidity - lunacy - mendacity and incompetence while the opposition prove their own stupidity lunacy and mendacity - with a remarkable degree of competence.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 06:24:43 AM
FTC,

Both schematics should perform similarly.  There would be differences in current handling capability for different portions of the FG waveform and possibly some AC differences (osc freq, etc).  But essentially they would perform the same.

The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the FG output (common source) will turn on when the FG output swings positive moreso than the MOSFET threshold voltage.  The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the CSR (common gate) will bias on into a "linear" region of operation when the FG output swings negative.

The scope shot you posted is the same as from Test 1/FIG 3 in the first paper and was discussed somewhat last night.  The indicated gate drive during the positive portion of the FG output is more than sufficient to turn on Q1 (schematic of first paper) while the CSR trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  One must assume that Q1 was either defective or disconnected during the test performed for this scope capture.

Long story short, both schematics should perform similarly.  Also, we have been assured that the second paper schematic was merely a typo and that the first paper schematic is the correct one.

PW

Howdy PW,

So Rosemary has indicated the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo.

Did she indicate that the device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in Rosemary's BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in her papers 1 & 2 or some other testing ? I can't seem to find that link from whom ever .... things get buried fast in this thread.

I see your also curious about the "DEAD or FLAT" battery test Rosemary posted in very first posting here in this thread http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg304941/#msg304941 I'd love to see this in a video or more details about it as there appears to be several people there at the time it was done.

Cheers,
FTC
 :)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 06:29:44 AM
@ PW, Fuzzy: Yes, in terms of waveforms the two will perform about the same, but in terms of load sharing it makes more sense to have the Q2 stack seeing the "plus" lead of the FG because when they are using the positive going drive, for big load heat, the load (and power dissipation) is shared by the four instead of just the one. The second diagram makes more sense from that viewpoint. But are we being told now that the FIRST one is correct? That's just because I have built the second one now. Watch... when I go back to the first one and again show the exact waveforms Rosemary shows, and she denies it... ANOTHER circuit will surface from somewhere.

In that recent scopeshot it again looks like no current is flowing in the CVR during the non-oscillation phase, yet there is a positive gate pulse of 12 volts or more. The magic offset knob is sneaking its offset past the scope again !!

And there will still be no testing forthcoming from Rosie Poser, nor will anyone get coherent answers to their questions.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 07, 2012, 06:34:06 AM
FTC,

Those simulation schematics are indeed more representative of the schematic in the second paper.  I have no additional info or comments regarding them, you will have to ask Rosemary.

Possibly .99 and/or I misunderstood, but I thought it was decided that the schematic in the first paper, with Q1 a single device and configured common source was the correct one.

Possibly Rosemary can again clarify this point...?

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 06:35:09 AM
Rosemary,

I see at the beginning of this thread that some tests were performed using three drained batteries and a single MOSFET in only the Q2 position.

I have a few questions regarding those tests.

1.  Do you know what the bulb number was that was used to discharge the batteries?

2.  When you say the batteries were discharged until the bulbs went out, was this completely out as in cup your hands around them or observe in the dark "out" or until they were just too dim to observe in a normally lit room?

3.  Was the somewhere around 10.06 volts figure given the voltage of the batteries with the bulbs still connected or was this the open circuit voltage taken after disconnecting the bulbs?

4.  If the answer to 3 above is the open circuit voltage, was the voltage measured fairly soon after the bulbs were disconnected?

Thanks,
PW

Hello Picowatt
These are not my experiments to comment on.  Unfortunately.  It belongs wholly to my colleagues.  And they're not prepared to engage in a discussion of this on these utterly corrupted forums where the agenda to deny is based on anything but professional or sensible scientific argument.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 07, 2012, 06:39:11 AM
TK,

It got pretty late last night, possibly I misunderstood which schematic is the correct one.  I thought it was decided that the schematic in the first paper is the correct one.

Rosemary, if you would, please let us know which schematic is the correct one, the first (Exp Evidence..) or second paper?

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 06:39:53 AM
Probe skew, Rosemary. Why do you think the scopes have an adjustment for probe skew?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 06:49:41 AM
TK,

It got pretty late last night, possibly I misunderstood which schematic is the correct one.  I thought it was decided that the schematic in the first paper is the correct one.

Rosemary, if you would, please let us know which schematic is the correct one, the first (Exp Evidence..) or second paper?

PW

@PW:
I would be very happy to stipulate that the first schematic is the "correct" one. Then, when she does her "high heat" test with a positive gate drive signal and 6 x 12 volt batteries...  and the mosfet on that cute little heatsink as shown in the video... I want to see the scope traces, one at the very beginning of the test, switch-on time.... and another after, say, ten minutes of operation at 72 volts into 14 Ohms total resistance. You might have missed the as-yet unexplained (by Rosemary) removal of a battery-- to make a 48 volt battery instead of 60 volts-- for the "high heat" portion of the video... which certainly used the first schematic (even though it showed a different one) and a positive gate pulse with clear evidence of good current in the CVR trace. Why was a battery removed for this test? I think I know. I think you might know too.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 07, 2012, 07:04:39 AM
PW, guys,

I've already stated my interpretation of Rosemary's reply to me, and that is paper 1 has the correct diagram.

Hi Poynty.   It makes not a blind bit of difference as it comes to the same thing.  But the Q2 on the right of the schematic has been corrected and replaced on the left on a corrected paper submitted for review.  This was pointed out by the editor and corrected.  But either way - as TK has shown - it gives precisely the same result.

Thanks Poynty - if you can correct the copy on your published - then do so.  If not - it really doesn't matter.  It doesn't constitute a misrepresentation - but an erroneous transposition - as picowatt explained.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 07, 2012, 07:27:31 AM
.99,

I would interpret Rosemary's response in a similar way.  It would, however, eliminate all ambiguity if Rosemary would confirm that the schematic in the first paper (Exp Evidence...) is indeed the correct one.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 08:05:52 AM
.99,

I would interpret Rosemary's response in a similar way.  It would, however, eliminate all ambiguity if Rosemary would confirm that the schematic in the first paper (Exp Evidence...) is indeed the correct one.

PW

Hello picowatt

Not sure why you need me to answer this when Poynty's reply and reference covers the question.  But far be it from me to deny you and Glen and TK the opportunity to fill this thread with another five pages of erroneous discussion.  I'm sure that you can none of you help yourselves.  It seems that the compulsive need to repeat everything is parceled with this same compulsive need to deny efficacy.  What's particularly intriguing is that this thread seems to be getting an average of 5000 hits a day.  Clearly our readers find your questions and answers as entertaining as I do.  Which just goes to show.  Even our trolls have their value. 

Rosie Pose 
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 07, 2012, 08:22:54 AM
Rosemary,

It would seem to be much easier for you to just state, "yes, paper one is correct" than all that "commentary".

What on Earth did I do to deserve that response?

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 08:26:55 AM
Hello picowatt

Not sure why you need me to answer this when Poynty's reply and reference covers the question.  But far be it from me to deny you and Glen and TK the opportunity to fill this thread with another five pages of erroneous discussion.  I'm sure that you can none of you help yourselves.  It seems that the compulsive need to repeat everything is parceled with this same compulsive need to deny efficacy.  What's particularly intriguing is that this thread seems to be getting an average of 5000 hits a day.  Clearly our readers find your questions and answers as entertaining as I do.  Which just goes to show.  Even our trolls have their value. 

Rosie Pose 
 :)

So little miss "SUPER TROLL" ... Rosie Posie ...

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html) ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ??  ???

Is that "ONE" question to hard now ....

CHEERS,
FTC
 ::)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 12:40:19 PM
Basic FG offset function:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoYFxq4bm2w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoYFxq4bm2w)

You all have no idea how hard it is to fake this stuff. I had to use CGI and a room full of renderers to pull this one off.


OH... it's almost six am. I've got to hurry.... it's almost time for me to reset the ROSIE TEST PREVENTION broadcast device, which radiates Tesla technology longitudinal scalar waves that keep Rosemary from thinking coherently and performing a TEST of her batteries for yet another day. I'm going to be boosting the power soon, though, so that a single linecast will prevent her from testing for an entire week.

(The grubby nails are because I spent literally _all day_ Friday replacing my car's air conditioning system. I vacuumed the residual R-22 out, replaced the compressor, condenser, accumulator, orifice tube with new parts, flushed the evaporator and hoses with dl-limonene followed by compressed air, replaced the  highside switch, the compressor-mounted switch and all the Schreder valves, all the o-rings, changed the fittings to R-134a standard, vacuumed out the system for a couple of hours with a 2-stage pump, recharged with 8 oz oil and 32 oz R-134a--- and now I have blissfully cold air blowing out the airholes in the cabin. And I still found time to re-actuate the PoserPreventer.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 01:18:08 PM
Yes TK.

That gradual ON and OFF is what I mentioned earlier on about your wave forms getting close, but without that characteristic. You didn't understand what I meant then, but you do now.

With the use of your delayed time base, the evidence is there, you got it. ;)

.99, what's the frequency of the oscs in the sim waveform shot? I can't read the timebase on my blurry copy. I'm consistently getting "approximately exactly" twice the frequency stated by the presenter in the video which relates to Rosemary's claims. This is confirmed by both the "manual" method of estimating freqs from the timebase, and also by direct hookup to the Philips PM6676 counter (an excellent performer, by the way: robust, stable and accurate.)

(Since we are now agreed that the "first" paper's circuit is the correct one to use, and since it is THAT circuit which was used in the demo video, I see no reason why the video isn't a valid topic for discussion and info-extraction.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 01:35:26 PM
Rosemary,

It would seem to be much easier for you to just state, "yes, paper one is correct" than all that "commentary".

What on Earth did I do to deserve that response?

PW
She's beginning to detect a hint of scepticism in your endless insistent demands for an explanation of unexplained features of this open-source, community-development project. So she's starting to turn on you.

I'd like to hear her explanation of why one battery was removed from the stack, for the second part of the video which used the now-known-to-be correct circuit, where high load heat was demonstrated. Why did she only use 48 volts for that part of the test? Wouldn't her ...  things ... have gotten even hotter had she used the full 60 volts ? Or the _actually full_ 72 volts she often reports using? Wouldn't that have been even more impressive than showing a non-immersed water heater element getting up to a mere 190 C?
(You do remember her saying that her MOSFETs don't heat up, don't you?)

Why in the world would one drop the voltage for these high-current tests using the "approved" schematic and circuit construction? Was there some kind of problem?

Rosie Poser said,
Quote
But either way - as TK has shown - it gives precisely the same result.


Note the distortion to suit her purpose. What I said and demonstrated was that there is little noticeable difference in the waveforms. There is more or less fuzz on certain portions of the trace and the feedback oscillation frequency is different, but not significantly so. But there is a much more important difference that has practical implications for the circuit's live performance.... and that involves the heat and current handling capacity of the mosfet(s) that is (are) turned on by the positive-going gate drive pulse during the high load heat mode of operation.
This is very different from me saying or showing "precisely the same result".

Why are four mosfets on large heat sinks, yet the lone mosfet is still on its bit of aluminum u-channel? Considering how the circuit actually behaves, the second schematic makes more sense (even though they didn't manage to use it for the video demo). So I am VERY happy indeed that Rosemary has decided that the FIRST schematic is the one to use. Remember, replicators: your Q1 mosfet must be on a small bit of U-channel.... and you must use 72 volts at some point, sustaining a load at high temperatures by using a positive-going gate pulse of 12 volts, just as Rosemary has shown. Oh... wait, sorry, she never showed using 72 volts, only 48.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 07, 2012, 02:42:02 PM
.99, what's the frequency of the oscs in the sim waveform shot?

TK,

As I recall, the actual scope shots show a Fo of about 1.3MHz. I get about the same in my simulations.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 07, 2012, 02:47:54 PM
TK, just an FYI:

For the video demonstration, Rosemary and her team had moved Q1 to a heatsink of lower Rth compared to the U-channel heatsink. It's still not nearly as large as the heat sinks used for Q2-5. See the attached.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 02:57:43 PM
There is somewhat of an enigma about this "high heat mode."  Assuming that you are looking at a "correct" data capture where the Q1 MOSFET is functioning then you have the gate drive high and the CSR shows significant current flowing through the circuit.  There are no oscillations so I have to assume that the battery voltage is stable.

So during this part of the cycle you are looking at a 100% conventional setup, a single MOSFET, Q1, switches on and DC current flows through the load resistor and the MOSFET.  Certainly there is a likelihood that the MOSFET could be overstressed and is dissipating more power than you would like it to, but everything is 100% conventional and the DSO should record positive power during this phase.

Then if you go into oscillation mode and the other four MOSFETs start to spasm, isn't the implication that the DSO is recording enough "negative power" to completely compensate for the positive power recorded during the Q1 ON phase?

Again, I think that you are still overlooking my sticky point.  The schematic in the first paper IS NOT the true schematic.  The error is that the schematic in the first paper shows the function generator grounded before the current sensing resistor, but in fact I believe that the function generator is grounded after the current sensing resistor.

What do you have to say about this issue Rosemary?

My theory is that in the original single-MOSFET setup you had the function generator grounded after the current sensing resistor.  Then when you added the four extra MOSFETs and miswired them, the function generator remained grounded after the current sensing resistor.  It did not occur to you that the four extra MOSFETs would conduct current straight through the function generator itself.

Is this what happened Rosemary?  You have to give us the straight goods.

As a reminder to all.  Poynt reverse-engineered the schematic and I confirmed that all appeared to be correct.  I did not literally see where the function generator ground lead was clipped in, but I am still assuming that the ground lead was clipped into the same place were all of the scope probe leads were clipped into, and that was the battery ground node.

So my theory is that once you go into negative oscillation mode, you have the wildly fluctuating battery voltage and an AC signal on the current sensing resistor that is not even the battery current.   The DSO in looking at these two junk signals saw what appeared to be very high negative power.  This false negative power measurement was enough to wipe out the positive power that was measured while Q1 was on.

I will repeat my contention:  The true battery current waveform during oscillation mode is unidirectional pulsing DC.   However, what is seen at the current sensing resistor is symmetrical AC that is AC-coupled through the gates of the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array.  Those are two radically different waveforms.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 03:14:28 PM
TK,

As I recall, the actual scope shots show a Fo of about 1.3MHz. I get about the same in my simulations.

Thanks... I guess I need more cabling amongst my batteries and suchlike.

 Also thanks about the HS... I didn't notice that they had used a bit better heat sink. I wonder why... since Rosemary has said several times that her mosfets don't get hot.
 
 BTW, does that look to you like her probes are attached at a "junction"?
 
 But she said,
 
Quote
OUR Scope probe positions are NOWHERE NEAR A JUNCTION.  There is therefore NO CONFUSIONS about our results.

 Oh... that's right, the video only "relates" to her claims....


Meanwhile, back in La-La land..... After one of my recent videos where I show the TarBaby configured according to YET ANOTHER "wrong" and disavowed schematic (the one in the second paper) Rosemary had a lot to say, all of which was garbage, but this bit in particular is so easy to refute I just couldn't leave it alone.

Rosemary said,

Quote
And colour code your 'FET wires - at LEAST.  Or something.  Or try and show that they're properly connected.

Here is a photo of my 'FET (sic) wires, as they appeared in that video (and still appear this morning). Notice anything interesting.... like the fact that Rosemary ONCE AGAIN is totally wrong about what she thinks she sees in my video and has no hesitation to post blather without checking her facts. But of course she will tell us that it is MY fault that she made this egregious error, because of my shaky cam and low light. And I will laugh and laugh.

Rosemary.... your video playback software DOES have a "pause" button, doesn't it? Perhaps you can get a ten-year-old to point it out to you and teach you how to use it to examine videos carefully.



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 03:18:50 PM
Rosemary:

I had another look at the clip and I realized that at the very beginning of the clip that you can clearly see that the function generator is grounded to the common grounding point for the probe grounds, which is the battery ground.

So now we are looking at another scenario:  When you wrote your two papers Rosemary you realized the mistake with respect to the grounding issue for the function generator.  It would not be correct to show the function generator bypassing the current sensing resistor because the current sensing resistor is supposed to be "pure" and account for all of the battery current.  Therefore you intentionally changed the simplified schematic diagrams in the papers to show the "negative" signal from the function generator connected before the current sensing resistor, even through you knew that this was not really the case.

Is the scenario that I just outlined above true Rosemary?

The simple fact is that you probably thought that it was a minor and benign change that nobody would notice and it would not really make any difference - or so you thought.

But the fact of the matter is that it makes a huge difference.  In the correct configuration as per the actually built device you have an AC-coupled signal going to the current sensing resistor.  There is no DC path at all in negatively offset oscillation mode.

It wasn't a benign change that nobody would notice, it's a complete and total screw up.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 03:31:41 PM
@MH: Good for you for finally pointing this out. I've used both ground positions for my TarBaby tests, but I've hidden the results out in a desert somewhere so Rosemary can't find them.

Either that or they are posted on YT, one or the other.

But as we know, the video only RELATES to the claims, the claims themselves and ALL THE CORRECT DATA AND SCHEMATICS are included in the papers. Aren't they?

And of course we know that DSOs are infallible, so what are you talking about with DC pathways and all that? It's all explained perfectly clearly in the papers using diagrams like the one below.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 03:36:06 PM
@MH: I wonder if you could do a similar analysis (similar to YOUR earlier one I mean, not hers) using the "high heat" mode with a positive gate pulse of 12 volts from the FG, on a diagram instead of the fine verbal description earlier ......

 8)

(You know... it is interesting. Every reference I can find about power measurements on switched mosfet circuits says to use the mosfet drain voltage and source-drain current in the instantaneous power computation. Yet it seems that they have left out the drain voltage completely in the papers (but not in the video, where it reveals much.))
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 04:08:42 PM
Good morning, Little Miss MOSFET.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 04:28:13 PM
@MH: the FG leads can be clearly seen in the shot .99 posted to show me the heatsink. The positive lead is the red alligator clip and the ground lead snakes over behind the probe and connects to the common ground bus at left.
In other words, of course you are right about the connection used in the video. And it's contrary to the circuit schematic used in the video, reproduced below, which doesn't show the FG ground at all--- AND shows a 72 volt battery pack. Don't try this with a single mosfet unless you are properly heatsunk and even fan-cooled... or you have a lot of mosfets.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 05:37:33 PM
Rosemary:

I had another look at the clip and I realized that at the very beginning of the clip that you can clearly see that the function generator is grounded to the common grounding point for the probe grounds, which is the battery ground.

So now we are looking at another scenario:  When you wrote your two papers Rosemary you realized the mistake with respect to the grounding issue for the function generator.  It would not be correct to show the function generator bypassing the current sensing resistor because the current sensing resistor is supposed to be "pure" and account for all of the battery current.  Therefore you intentionally changed the simplified schematic diagrams in the papers to show the "negative" signal from the function generator connected before the current sensing resistor, even through you knew that this was not really the case.

Is the scenario that I just outlined above true Rosemary?

The simple fact is that you probably thought that it was a minor and benign change that nobody would notice and it would not really make any difference - or so you thought.

But the fact of the matter is that it makes a huge difference.  In the correct configuration as per the actually built device you have an AC-coupled signal going to the current sensing resistor.  There is no DC path at all in negatively offset oscillation mode.

It wasn't a benign change that nobody would notice, it's a complete and total screw up.

MileHigh

MileHigh I've answered from the get go.  From our very first post that Poynty made on this forum and my previous thread.  Pay attention.  Our demonstration was only to show that there was a coincidence in numbers between the Tektronix and the Le Croy.  This because the Tektronix is NOT grounded.  Therefore grounding issues related to incorrect readings could be obviated.  This is widely denied - but I'm not about to engage in yet another argument about that.

NOW.  To accommodate 8 probes and their respective ground terminals - and the applied signal from the function generator - we simply ran out of space.  Therefore, for the purposes of that demo we simply hooked the signal generator's probe to an available point which was 'behind' the CSR and in directly line with the battery negative.  We KNOW that it makes no significant difference to the values of the current.  We PROVE that it makes no significant difference in the tests detailed in our paper.  This because the CSR is NOT embedded in that loop for any of our tests that are included in our paper.  May I impose on you to drop this.  I assure you the tests for our paper ONLY have the CSR in line with the negative terminal of the battery.  NOTHING ELSE.  And - in point of fact, our signal probes are typically applied directly to the two gates of Q1 and Q2 respectively. 

And notwithstanding your assumption about this - it most certainly WAS, at it's MOST - a  benign change.  When I get the go ahead I'll be able to show you this.  There is very little difference between the values on the CSR regardless of the position of that ground terminal of the signal supply.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 05:52:13 PM
There is somewhat of an enigma about this "high heat mode."  Assuming that you are looking at a "correct" data capture where the Q1 MOSFET is functioning then you have the gate drive high and the CSR shows significant current flowing through the circuit.  There are no oscillations so I have to assume that the battery voltage is stable.

So during this part of the cycle you are looking at a 100% conventional setup, a single MOSFET, Q1, switches on and DC current flows through the load resistor and the MOSFET.  Certainly there is a likelihood that the MOSFET could be overstressed and is dissipating more power than you would like it to, but everything is 100% conventional and the DSO should record positive power during this phase.

Then if you go into oscillation mode and the other four MOSFETs start to spasm, isn't the implication that the DSO is recording enough "negative power" to completely compensate for the positive power recorded during the Q1 ON phase?
Not entirely MileHigh.  Each negative oscillation is matched by a positive.  And if you look at the math trace - then there's more returned to the battery during the oscillation phase than was delivered in 'on' phase.  But the actual question is WHERE does that positive half of each oscillation come from.  Which goes back to our early quarrel.  You claim that it can pass through the signal generator straight to the battery ground rail.  I don't buy that argument.  It's most easily refuted by the fact that we can get precisely the same oscillation from a 555 switch.  But there are more cogent arguments yet.  I just haven't got the patience to go through them again.

And I think I've answered your other points in my previous post.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2012, 05:58:45 PM
Good morning, Little Miss MOSFET.

And good morning to you too TinselKoala.  But we're actually romping into our early evening - which puts me way ahead of you. 

Rosie Pose

Pretty picture by the way.  Not sure you've done my figure justice.  But the face is good.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 06:57:15 PM
An item of possible interest to some of us.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FURkoitGRwI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FURkoitGRwI)


And there seems to be something else very strange on that channel..... a fresh alt.snakeoil Video Report.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 07:45:26 PM
So little miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL" ... Rosie Posie ...

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html) ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ??  ???

Is that "ONE" question to hard now ....

No more blah, blah, blah ..... I'll keep posting this a thousand times just like you do your THESIS crap until you answer the question !!!

CHEERS,
FTC
 ::)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 07, 2012, 08:03:52 PM
Rosemary,

Regarding Q1 not turning on when the scope shots say it should be...

I have looked at as many scope captures as I could find of your testing and it appears that in all captures made after 2-22-11, Q1 is not functioning as it should be.  Scope captures made on or before that date indicate that Q1 is performing as one would expect from the data indicated by the gate drive and CSR traces.  It appears that on 2-22-11 there were some particularly "spikey" tests being performed as the duty cycle was being modified and I suspect that Q1 was being stressed at that time.  If you have additional captures to look at, you should be able to narrow down the date when something happened to the Q1 portion of the circuit.  I hope that helps.

Regarding the location of the connection of the function generator lead's ground clip, it does matter a bit.  When the generator output swings negative, Q2 is biased on.  With the generator set to its full negative position, if the schematic of the output stage .99 posted some time ago is correct, a maximum of -14.5V can be present at the FG output terminal when measured open circuit.  With the internal Rgen of 50 ohms, this would bias Q2 on at approximately 200ma.  This 200ma. flows from the battery through Rload, Q2 and the functon generator.  (If Q2 is warmer than 25C, the bias current can be greater than the estimated 200ma. as the MOSFET threshold voltage is temperature dependent.)

If the FG's ground clip is connected to the battery negative, this 200ma. of bias current will not be displayed on the CSR traces and hence not accounted for in the math calculations.  If the FG's ground clip were connected to the end of the CSR opposite the battery minus connection, this 200 ma. of current would be indicated at the CSR as a continuous +50 millivolts by the CSR scope trace for the duration of the FG's negative voltage output.  As the cycle mean indicates -28mv or there abouts, this +50 mv, if not in the CSR loop, represents a sinificant error.

I wish you could make more data available regarding the "flat battery" test you discussed at the beginning of this thread.  That test seems very interesting and using only one MOSFET in the Q2 location and three flat batteries makes things a bit simpler to replicate.

I can accept that not all data is disclosed for various reasons, but if a time does come when additional info regarding that test can be made available, it would be very much appreciated if you would do so.

Thanks,
PW

 


   



 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 07, 2012, 08:32:43 PM
Hey little miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL"

I'd like to see this test replicated again, beside the "FLAT or DEAD" battery test you performed on "YOUR INVENTION".

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg288257/#msg288257   Reply #1396 on: May 24, 2011, 10:40:47 PM

Quote
I need to remind you Poynt.99 that this test of ours is replicated on the following variation.  1 battery - used - same supply used to generate the charge for the switch - THEREFORE no functions generator - NO long wires on that test - NO grounding issues - same evident zero voltage discharge - and temperature over the iron resistor at 240 degrees which was hot enough to vaporise solder.

1) one (1) battery
2) no function generator  ( wonder what was the duty cycle was )  ???
3) a 12 volt soldering iron       

Vaporized the "LEAD SOLDER" .... WOW .... 361.4 °F is the melting point, the Boiling point is 3180 °F and "VAPORIZATION" point is 179.5 KJ·mol−1  ..... incredible !!!   :o

This is a must see ...... for little miss mosfet the "SUPER TROLL" !!!!


Cheers,
FTC
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 07, 2012, 08:54:32 PM
Sounds all fluxed up to me.

 :o
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 11:18:39 PM
TK:

I can try to make a "high heat mode" diagram in a few days.

PW:

Thanks for your comments.  I believe resolving the grounding issue for the function generator is part of arriving at the proper conclusion.

Rosemary:

Quote
We KNOW that it makes no significant difference to the values of the current.

Sorry, that's not going to fly.  You must have seen from a few days ago that TK confirmed the current flow through his function generator with a digital multimeter.  Poynt also agrees with this.  You saw PW's comments from earlier today.  The simple fact is that you don't understand how a function generator works and we do.  i also posted an Agilent application note a few weeks back (reposted later by TK) that shows how you can put a function generator into the current loop of a device under test to effectively increase the output voltage from the function generator.

This is a critical flaw in your measurements and shame on you for intentionally changing the simplified schematic diagram in your two papers to where you show the function generator "negative" terminal connected before the current sensing resistor.  We also know that you originally pathetically tried to lie about the miswiring of the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs as is evidenced in your clip.  That's two lies about your circuit topology where you have been caught red-handed.  There is a sanctity about not lying about your circuit configuration and your data when you present a paper and you broke it twice.  This is a zero tolerance zone.

Quote
Each negative oscillation is matched by a positive.  And if you look at the math trace - then there's more returned to the battery during the oscillation phase than was delivered in 'on' phase.  But the actual question is WHERE does that positive half of each oscillation come from.

This is because you are simply not understanding the fact that the signal you are seeing across the current sensing resistor is an AC-coupled signal coming from the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs that are acting like an AC oscillator.  "AC-coupled" means that there is no DC current flow through the current sensing resistor, all of the DC current flow is going through the function generator.

At best, what you see across the CSR might be an indication of the battery current, but that's all you know.  The battery current is flowing through the function generator and your DSO is not looking at it so your average power calculations are invalid.

The issue is not going away and that's why I called the marked-up image of the pegboard, the "Pegboard of Doom."

With this knowledge I can now articulate the proper "LEDs of Doom" configuration for you in negative oscillation mode:

1.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the CSR.  Both will light up because of the AC signal from the AC output from the AC-coupled Q2-Q5 MOSFET oscillator.

2.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the function generator output.  Only one LED will light up indicating that current is flowing clockwise through the circuit and the battery set is discharging.

The days for your proposition are numbered.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 07, 2012, 11:57:09 PM
PW:

I just wanted to review the issue of the ground location for the function generator and measuring the battery current flow with you in a bit more detail.  I am under the impression that you view the current going through the CSR as still being indicative of the battery current flow even though you are aware of the fact that current is also flowing through the function generator.  Although I am not so sure you still think like this because of your recent posting to Rosemary about this issue.   All that being said, here goes...

You can look at the Q2-Q5 array as a black box with three ports.  There is a current in port, I_IN, a current out port, I_OUT, and then the AC current output port, AC_OUT.

We know that the black box is drawing power from the power supply via I_IN and I_OUT ports.  Current, i(t), flows through the device and there is some sort of voltage drop, v(t), across the device.  We don't necessarily know what i and v are at any specific time, but we know that (i(t) x v(t)) represents the instantaneous power consumption of the device.

We also know that the sum of the currents I_IN, I_OUT, and AC_OUT equal zero.

With respect to power, we know that the device dissipates power as a function of time, p(t).  We also know that it outputs power to the outside world via the AC_OUT port, and that is a function of time, p_ac(t).

What does this all boil down to?  The true battery current can be monitored on I_IN or I_OUT.  You don't really have to care about the AC current flowing in and out of AC_OUT.

The Q2-Q5 MOSFET array in negative oscillation mode is just a black box that dissipates battery power, that's the only thing that you have to worry about.  The black box happens to have a port that exports AC power to the outside world, but all of that power is accounted for if you simply measure the current flowing through the black box and measure the battery voltage.  Does that make sense to you?

So, in plain English, the true current being drawn by the circuit is through the function generator.  You can completely ignore the AC current going through the CSR because all of the power is accounted for by measuring the current going through the function generator and the battery voltage.

So, assuming that makes sense to you, then the next problem is measuring the true battery voltage.  The assumption is that the battery is powering the circuit with steady DC and the circuit itself is sending an AC voltage signal back to the battery.  At the very high frequency of the AC signal, the battery simply looks like a high-impedance load.  As a result you are seeing a "fake" AC waveform superimposed on the true DC battery voltage.

The issue of the battery voltage may be a lot more complicated than that, but that's my first crack at it.  You have those long battery wires also so if you have a black box injecting a 2 MHz voltage signal back to the battery, you have to start looking at things like the impedance vs. frequency for all of the devices, etc, etc.  It's somewhat of a mess.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 12:26:31 AM
"Somewhat" is right.

So.. what happens when NO FG is used at all, nothing hooked to the circuit at its points, and one simply "tickles" the Q1 gate/Q2 source  with a suitable resistor attached to batt positive? By tickle I mean no full contact, just a scratch and then removal.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 12:43:51 AM
MH,

I would think that only the Q2 DC bias current (likely around 200ma +/- 50ma) and less than 20% (possibly closer to or less than 10%) of the AC current would be unaccounted for during the osc phase if the FG common was connected to BAT- instead of the CSR.  The bulk of the AC current would bypass the FG via the Ciss reactance of all the MOSFET's which would be much less than Rgen at Fosc.

PW

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 12:49:58 AM
Hi TK:

With just a tickle and no function generator I think Q1 would start to spontaneously oscillate and some current wold flow through the CSR.  Q2-Q5 would probably oscillate as a slave to Q1.  They Q2-Q5 gate input comes from the Q1 source and the Q2-Q5 source would feed back to the Q1 gate.  Note also though that the Q2-Q5 gate input is tied close to ground by the CSR which and the Q2-Q5 source is on the same node as the Q1 gate.  You note that the Q1 gate input is quasi-floating.  It's floating as long as Q2-Q5 are off.

There is a chance that nothing would happen also but I suspect that Q1 would oscillate.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
TK,

Fast tickle= partial turn on of Q1
Slow tickle= greater turn on of Q1

Q2 stays off, Q1 gets warm until leakage current turns it back off.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 01:17:25 AM
PW:

Quote
I would think that only the Q2 DC bias current (likely around 200ma +/- 50ma) and less than 20% (possibly closer to or less than 10%) of the AC current would be unaccounted for during the osc phase if the FG common was connected to BAT- instead of the CSR.  The bulk of the AC current would bypass the FG via the Ciss reactance of all the MOSFET's which would be much less than Rgen at Fosc.

I think that you are missing a fundamental point.  I am looking at Q2-Q5 as a three-port black box without having to consider frequency and reactance.  I said, "We also know that the sum of the currents I_IN, I_OUT, and AC_OUT equal zero."

So if AC current is flowing out of the box from AC_OUT to the battery ground, then current has to be flowing into the box from either I_IN, I_OUT, or both.  Knowing the polarity of the battery power source, we assume that the current comes into the box from from I_IN.

Likewise, if AC current is flowing into the box from the battery ground to AC_OUT, then current has to be flowing out of the box from either I_IN, I_OUT, or both.  Knowing the polarity of the battery power source, we assume that the current flows out of the box via I_OUT.

Obviously the above two examples are simplified.

So either I_IN or I_OUT will account for all of the current associated with the gate capacitances of the MOSFETs and all of the AC current flowing through the CSR.  As a result, you simply don't have to consider the AC current flowing though the the CSR.  If the coupling on the AC_OUT port was DC and not AC, it would be a different story.

Ultimately the true net current flow is unidirectional.  Seeing a negative voltage across the CSR in negative oscillation mode is not an indicator that the battery is recharging.

I guess if somebody does work on the bench we might see this looked into.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 01:52:33 AM
MH,

If we knew the drain current, we would know the total of AC and DC currents at that point.

At the source, the AC and DC paths split.  DC to BAT- via FG, AC to BAT- via FG and moreso via CSR.

We don't have Idrain for AC or DC, so we must rely on the source current paths for measurement.

I am not exactly sure what you are saying.  We can't ignore the AC paths as the AC is not symmetrical.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 02:36:42 AM
So.. what happens when NO FG is used at all, nothing hooked to the circuit at its points, and one simply "tickles" the Q1 gate/Q2 source  with a suitable resistor attached to batt positive? By tickle I mean no full contact, just a scratch and then removal.

Not much should happen TK. You will get a short burst (or multiple bursts due to contact bounce) of oscillation, but as soon as you take the resistor off battery--the output should go flatline.

The reason being; the MOSFET needs a slight DC ON-bias in order to oscillate.

You might want to ask yourself, "what would happen if I supplied ONLY a constant DC bias?". I know what will happen, and I assume you do as well.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 02:47:39 AM
Well, I haven't done it lately but I got the "no FG + tickle" idea from humbugger's work on that other forum a year ago. When I tried it the first time, it did what .99 said, and then when I really noisily and barely tickled, it went into an oscillation mode where there were oscillations across the whole trace which gained in amplitude until I grounded the tickled spot again-- like what MH described, I think. I think without a pull-down resistor or a zero or negative gate signal, a turned-on mosfet gate might just stay on until something drains the charge away.  But with floating gate a mosfet could do just about anything. (Except recharge a battery !) I'm going to wait until I have a few more spare PG50s before I try it again, just in case.

No comments about my most recent videos? I should have thought that the MOSDEF demo especially would have been interesting in light of the current (no pun intended) discussion. And don't forget about alt.snakeoil.... there are always some good video reports under that alias.

I've shot another video that I'm processing and uploading now, showing another interesting effect, that I predicted earlier but had not yet tested for.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 02:57:12 AM
Picowatt
Regarding Q1 not turning on when the scope shots say it should be...
Not actually.  Late yesterday I was finally able to speak to someone about your questions related to the scope shots.  The immediate counter question was 'why is he applying DC?'  Here's the thing.  Apparently the coupling is set to DC -  throughout.  But the peak to peak voltages and 'bias' (not sure if that's the right term) of each channel is also shown.  Which means that 'correctly' you need to adjust to the values of the signal as AC - which is applied from the signal generator.  And that value is given.  You'll then see that the voltage is NOT the >10 volts but something considerably less.  Which also means that there is probably not enough voltage at the gate of Q1 to turn it on - as applied to that first test.
I have looked at as many scope captures as I could find of your testing and it appears that in all captures made after 2-22-11, Q1 is not functioning as it should be.  Scope captures made on or before that date indicate that Q1 is performing as one would expect from the data indicated by the gate drive and CSR traces.  It appears that on 2-22-11 there were some particularly "spikey" tests being performed as the duty cycle was being modified and I suspect that Q1 was being stressed at that time.  If you have additional captures to look at, you should be able to narrow down the date when something happened to the Q1 portion of the circuit.  I hope that helps.
Which also means that there is nothing unreliable about our data capture and there's no need to question the calibration of that machine.
Regarding the location of the connection of the function generator lead's ground clip, it does matter a bit.  When the generator output swings negative, Q2 is biased on.  With the generator set to its full negative position, if the schematic of the output stage .99 posted some time ago is correct, a maximum of -14.5V can be present at the FG output terminal when measured open circuit.  With the internal Rgen of 50 ohms, this would bias Q2 on at approximately 200ma.  This 200ma. flows from the battery through Rload, Q2 and the functon generator.
When the output from the generator 'swings to negative' as you put it - then it is applying a positive voltage at Q2.  How exactly do you propose that any negative current at all is then passed through RLoad?  Especially in view of the oscillations that then manifest which most assuredly are not unidirectional.
If the FG's ground clip is connected to the battery negative, this 200ma. of bias current will not be displayed on the CSR traces and hence not accounted for in the math calculations.  If the FG's ground clip were connected to the end of the CSR opposite the battery minus connection, this 200 ma. of current would be indicated at the CSR as a continuous +50 millivolts by the CSR scope trace for the duration of the FG's negative voltage output.  As the cycle mean indicates -28mv or there abouts, this +50 mv, if not in the CSR loop, represents a significant error.
Again. I appreciate your need to imply that there is an applied negative current flow from Q1 when the signal switches to negative.  Can you show us where this is evident on any of our waveforms?
I wish you could make more data available regarding the "flat battery" test you discussed at the beginning of this thread.  That test seems very interesting and using only one MOSFET in the Q2 location and three flat batteries makes things a bit simpler to replicate.
I'm reasonably certain that this could be tested - rather easily - by any one of you. And I'm also rather keen to see some data from TK's 'claimed' replication.  I'm not actually sure who here is working openly and who isn't.  There is absolutely NO information related to the NERD circuit that is being withheld - to the best of my knowledge.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 02:57:59 AM
Considering the amount of noise present due to the oscillation, yeah it would be possible for the Gate to pick that up I guess. You'd probably need only a 1M or so pull-down to prevent that. Or perhaps only a few hundred pico-Farads of capacitance would do the trick?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 03:01:09 AM
TK,

Your video demoing the FG offset and affect on the oscillation modes was a good one. Clearly one can see when the offset is changed from one extreme to the other, the circuit goes from normal switching mode, to burst oscillation mode. Well done ;)

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 03:12:53 AM
Basic FG offset function:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoYFxq4bm2w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoYFxq4bm2w)
You all have no idea how hard it is to fake this stuff. I had to use CGI and a room full of renderers to pull this one off.
Not true TK.  All you used was the magical misapplication of a light switch. The trick is to turn it on. 

OH... it's almost six am. I've got to hurry.... it's almost time for me to reset the ROSIE TEST PREVENTION broadcast device, which radiates Tesla technology longitudinal scalar waves that keep Rosemary from thinking coherently and performing a TEST of her batteries for yet another day. I'm going to be boosting the power soon, though, so that a single linecast will prevent her from testing for an entire week.
I'm not sure that this is being correctly focused.  I have absolutely NO say as to when I'll be allowed to run these tests.

(The grubby nails are because I spent literally _all day_ Friday replacing my car's air conditioning system. I vacuumed the residual R-22 out, replaced the compressor, condenser, accumulator, orifice tube with new parts, flushed the evaporator and hoses with dl-limonene followed by compressed air, replaced the  highside switch, the compressor-mounted switch and all the Schreder valves, all the o-rings, changed the fittings to R-134a standard, vacuumed out the system for a couple of hours with a 2-stage pump, recharged with 8 oz oil and 32 oz R-134a--- and now I have blissfully cold air blowing out the airholes in the cabin. And I still found time to re-actuate the PoserPreventer.)
I would strongly recommend that you just wash your hands.  It usually does the trick.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 03:18:20 AM
I see that Rosemary still hasn't discovered my hiding place for all my TarBaby test reports. I hide stuff pretty well, don't I? Kind of like in "The Purloined Letter." Also my Tesla NERD preventer is working quite well-- it has even stopped the NERDs from discussing testing at all.

Meanwhile, I've posted... er, sorry, HIDDEN yet another report about Tar Baby here:

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

And.... who ever said ("claimed" as Ains-lie says) Tar Baby was a "replication" of the NERD device? I have explicity said that it is not, and that the only CLAIM I make about Tar Baby is that it performs the same as the NERD circuit (whichever one, I don't care, I've done them all.)
Just because it uses the SAME circuit diagram, the SAME mosfets, the SAME current viewing resistor, the SAME gate drive input signals, the SAME load resistance and impedance (give or take) and makes the SAME heat in the load and the SAME oscilloscope traces as the NERD device.... it cannot be a replication, because it cannot charge its own batteries. QED.

Just like when I replicated Mylow's hoax motor: I did it just like he did, but Sterling wouldn't give me the award, even though he acknowledged my priority--- because MY replication wasn't overunity so it couldn't be a replication, even though the oriiginal wasn't ou either and mine was powered the same as his..... go figure.

So, apparently the only thing that counts as a replication is being able to CONFIRM THE CLAIMS made about the original. Parts, construction, operation, data, none of that matters... only the CLAIMS count.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 03:25:16 AM
Not true TK.  All you used was the magical misapplication of a light switch. The trick is to turn it on. 
Heh.... are you hallucinating again? It seems that other people can see just fine what that video shows.
Quote
I'm not sure that this is being correctly focused.  I have absolutely NO say as to when I'll be allowed to run these tests.
NOTE WELL: Somebody else is in control of Rosemary's testing.... I wonder who and why.  When she'll be ALLOWED to run tests. NO SAY.
Quote
I would strongly recommend that you just wash your hands.  It usually does the trick.

Rosie Pose
Said by someone who has never done a lick of hard grubby manual work in her life. My grubby hands mean that I saved several hundreds of dollars on that job AND wound up with several useful tools, like a vacuum pump and a gauge manifold set. I worked for years as an aircraft mechanic, overhauling engines, and believe me, no amount of soap and scrubbing will get your hands clean. Time is the only thing that will do it, as the dirty skin wears away and is replaced by fresh. Washing your  hair with dishsoap is also a good way to clean your hands.

Or you can just pay somebody else to do your dirty work. Try that after the apocalypse, though.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 03:31:49 AM
Quote
There is absolutely NO information related to the NERD circuit that is being withheld - to the best of my knowledge.

THAT is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Drain voltage traces, critical for diagnosis. Contact details for your co-authors (standard in scientific communications.) Results from properly performed battery capacity tests. RAW DATA.
WHY WAS A BATTERY REMOVED FROM THE STACK for the second, high heat part of the demo? WHY have you never shown a high heat demonstration using a positive gate pulse and a 72 volt battery pack?
There is so much information that you are withholding that it's like trying to do remote viewing. In fact, we'd be doing a lot better if you would just SHUT UP and stop giving so much MISinformation.

The best of your knowledge is not so good, Rosie Poser.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 04:06:36 AM
PW:

Quote
If we knew the drain current, we would know the total of AC and DC currents at that point.

At the source, the AC and DC paths split.  DC to BAT- via FG, AC to BAT- via FG and moreso via CSR.

We don't have Idrain for AC or DC, so we must rely on the source current paths for measurement.

I am not exactly sure what you are saying.  We can't ignore the AC paths as the AC is not symmetrical.

I agree that there is DC and AC current passing through the function generator.  And I agree that AC current is passing through he current sensing resistor.

You state that you need to look at the separate source current paths for measurement.   Try taking a top view and think about what we are trying to measure -> the power supplied by the battery to the entire circuit, (or possibly returned to the battery) while the device runs.

You can break that down into the power dissipated in the load resistor, the MOSFETs, the resistor inside the function generator, and the current sensing resistor.

So, if you look at the AC current going through the current sensing resistor you are not accounting for the DC current going through the main load resistor (that's also going through the function generator), and by extension you are not seeing the power being dissipated in the main load resistor.  It's fraught with too many problems.  (tm  ;D )  I will repeat, a negative voltage across the current sensing resistor does not necessarily indicate counter-clockwise current such that power is being dissipated in the main load resistor or the battery is being recharged.

In my opinion, the only way to do this properly is to get rid of all of the complexities and create a "hardware abstraction layer" for the whole mess.  For example, if you looked at the Q2-Q5 drain current only times the battery voltage, that would tell you the instantaneous power consumption of the entire circuit, (still talking negative offset oscillation mode) and as a result you don't have to worry about the DC and AC function generator currents and the current sensing resistor currents.

Anyway, that's my take on it.  Personally I would ignore all power measurements made with the function generator 'negative' terminal bypassing the current sensing resistor.

Hence, Rosie's reports are junk in my book.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 04:07:04 AM
Rosemary:

Sorry, that's not going to fly.  You must have seen from a few days ago that TK confirmed the current flow through his function generator with a digital multimeter.
If TK has got a digital multimeter that is able to accommodate the frequencies of the oscillation - then he has not shown us that multimeter.
Poynt also agrees with this.
And I'm reasonably certain that Poynt - more than any of you - is well aware of the 'smallness' of that variation in current flow as a result of the generators' ground terminal positioning.
You saw PW's comments from earlier today.
I did indeed.  And his observations 'error' as they're not based on the available data.  I've explained this.
The simple fact is that you don't understand how a function generator works and we do.
I suspect that my understanding of its applications are as profound as they need be for the task at hand.
I also posted an Agilent application note a few weeks back (reposted later by TK) that shows how you can put a function generator into the current loop of a device under test to effectively increase the output voltage from the function generator.
And this is relevant?  Somehow? 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 04:09:00 AM
This is a critical flaw in your measurements and shame on you for intentionally changing the simplified schematic diagram in your two papers to where you show the function generator "negative" terminal connected before the current sensing resistor.
MileHigh - what amuses me most is that you really believe this.  For some reason you seem somewhat 'piqued' that we reference that CSR in the position where it really, really is.  There are 7 of us collaborators.  That's an awful lot of us must be heavily committed to publicly and fraudulently misrepresenting the fact.  7 criminals who stand accused by you MileHigh?  With your conscience entirely untrammeled by concerns related to the effects of what may constitute 'slander'?  Judged 'guilty' notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary?  Because you 'prefer' to believe this?  I'm not sure who should be 'smitten' with a sense of shame - except that it most certainly is not ME nor any of my collaborators.  And in the light of your rather reckless indulgence in traducement - I doubt that can presume to occupy any moral high ground at all.  With or without respect. Golly.
We also know that you originally pathetically tried to lie about the miswiring of the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs as is evidenced in your clip.  That's two lies about your circuit topology where you have been caught red-handed.  There is a sanctity about not lying about your circuit configuration and your data when you present a paper and you broke it twice.  This is a zero tolerance zone.
Zero tolerance zone?  Whatever next?  Am I here engaged in a discourse with Mother Theresa?  I ASSURE you - any reference to any incorrect schematics can be attributed ENTIRELY to my account.  I make no apologies for them as I had and have my reasons.  And the incorrect presentations have been ENTIRELY corrected - fortunately - by the timeous interventions and considerable skills of our Poynty Point.  For which - and for reasons that I will not make publicly available - I am PROFOUNDLY grateful.
This is because you are simply not understanding the fact that the signal you are seeing across the current sensing resistor is an AC-coupled signal coming from the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs that are acting like an AC oscillator.  "AC-coupled" means that there is no DC current flow through the current sensing resistor, all of the DC current flow is going through the function generator. At best, what you see across the CSR might be an indication of the battery current, but that's all you know.  The battery current is flowing through the function generator and your DSO is not looking at it so your average power calculations are invalid.
This is just nonsense.  Again.  Where is the DC current flow going through the function generator?  Where is the evidence?  How?  And why does the CSR NOT represent the current flow to and from the battery?
The issue is not going away and that's why I called the marked-up image of the pegboard, the "Pegboard of Doom."

With this knowledge I can now articulate the proper "LEDs of Doom" configuration for you in negative oscillation mode:

1.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the CSR.  Both will light up because of the AC signal from the AC output from the AC-coupled Q2-Q5 MOSFET oscillator.

2.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the function generator output.  Only one LED will light up indicating that current is flowing clockwise through the circuit and the battery set is discharging.

The days for your proposition are numbered.
And as for this bit of propaganda - it's 'EXCEPTIONAL'.  Not scientific - but certainly laudable in the context of artistic irrelevance applied for flavour and bias.  At least there's no pretense at science.
 
 Rosie Pose 'eo'.
  :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 08, 2012, 04:09:47 AM
ROTFLMAO ....

Guys,

The start of the COP>INFINITY device of Rosemary's started ....

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg275428/#msg275428             on: February 20, 2011, 03:14:05 PM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg294073/#msg294073             Reply #1790 on: July 06, 2011, 02:01:11 AM  ( last reply )

First post (1) and 1,790 reply's ..... = 1,791 sub total  ;)

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg304941/#msg304941                                      on: November 08, 2011, 06:15:50 PM
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318113/#msg318113                                       Reply #1931 on: Today at 06:31:49 PM    ( last reply so far )

First post (1) and 1,931 reply's ..... = 1,932 sub total  ;)

TOTAL POSTS = 3,723  ???

DEVICE COMPONENTS -

1) six (6) battery's
2) five (5) mosfet's w/ heat sinks and attachment hardware
3) one (1) load resistor
4) four (4) 1 ohm wire wound resistors in parallel for one (1) "Rshunt" .25 ohms

TOTAL COMPONENTS -

SIXTEEN (16)  ???

AVERAGE OF POSTS PER DEVICE COMPONENT -

3,723 / 16 =    232   "POSTINGS & REPLY'S"  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o



All for one simple circuit with a CLAIM of COP>INFINITY ...... Humm ....  :P


Cheers,
FTC
 ::)



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 04:28:32 AM
Rosemary:

Quote
MileHigh - what amuses me most is that you really believe this.  For some reason you seem somewhat 'piqued' that we reference that CSR in the position where it really, really is.  There are 7 of us collaborators.  That's an awful lot of us must be heavily committed to publicly and fraudulently misrepresenting the fact.  7 criminals who stand accused by you MileHigh?  With your conscience entirely untrammeled by concerns related to the effects of what may constitute 'slander'?  Judged 'guilty' notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary?  Because you 'prefer' to believe this?  I'm not sure who should be 'smitten' with a sense of shame - except that it most certainly is not ME nor any of my collaborators.  And in the light of your rather reckless indulgence in traducement - I doubt that can presume to occupy any moral high ground at all.  With or without respect. Golly.

We have looked at your clip and the function generator 'negative' terminal is connected to the battery ground.  In your papers you show the function generator 'negative' terminal connected before the current sensing resistor.

I don't care if it is an outright lie intentionally made by you or if you mistakenly thought that you were making a 'benign' change that would make the paper look better, or if it was simply an oversight - the bottom line is that there is a huge mistake in the circuit diagrams shown in the papers and this is simply unacceptable.

Nor am I going to try to 'prove' to you that current can flow through the function generator.  If you don't understand this then just accept it as being true or look it up and educate yourself.

This 'Rosie Posie game' where you whine and say "I'm clueless so as far as I am concerned things that you tell me that I don't understand and I don't like are untrue until proven otherwise" is getting really tedious.

All of your data is worthless junk because you are not looking at the true battery current because you and your team mistakenly put the function generator 'negative' probe where you all thought it was supposed to go.  Not a single one of you was aware that this mistake would corrupt all of your data and as a result your papers are junk.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 04:36:01 AM
Rosemary:

We have looked at your clip and the function generator 'negative' terminal is connected to the battery ground.  In your papers you show the function generator 'negative' terminal connected before the current sensing resistor.

I don't care if it is an outright lie intentionally made by you or if you mistakenly thought that you were making a 'benign' change that would make the paper look better, or if it was simply an oversight - the bottom line is that there is a huge mistake in the circuit diagrams shown in the papers and this is simply unacceptable.

Nor am I going to try to 'prove' to you that current can flow through the function generator.  If you don't understand this then just accept it as being true or look it up and educate yourself.

This 'Rosie Posie game' where you whine and say "I'm clueless so as far as I am concerned things that you tell me that I don't understand and I don't like are untrue until proven otherwise" is getting really tedious.

All of your data is worthless junk because you are not looking at the true battery current because you and your team mistakenly put the function generator 'negative' probe where you all thought it was supposed to go.  Not a single one of you was aware that this mistake would corrupt all of your data and as a result your papers are junk.

MileHigh

MilesStratospheric

Here we have another example of your impeccable reasoning.  Essentially you're claiming that you really don't care about the facts.  You prefer to think what you think and therefore as far as you are concerned you're 'right'.  In point of fact - YET AGAIN - we typically apply the probe to Q1 and its terminal to Q2.  It could NOT be positioned further from the shunt within the confines of that circuit apparatus - short of rebuilding that entire circuit.

Rosie Posie
 :(   

Added
In any event.  Far be it from me to try and convince someone who's so entirely reasonable and so free from any possible accusations of slander.  It's the fall back technique of our trolls who give themselves unlimited license in their 'disclaiming' exercises. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 04:37:58 AM
Rosemary,

I admit I am unfamiliar with the Lecroy Wavejet 300 series.  That is why I downloaded the user manual to assist in my analysis.

In FIG. 3/Test 1, channel 3 is the signal to the gate, correct?  The little line under the number 3 to the left of the screen indicates the "zero" line or "zero" position of the trace.  Any displayed signal that is above that line is a positive voltage.  Any signal displayed below that line is a negative voltage.

During the period when the function generator output is positive, the scope indicates that the signal during that period is just a bit over one major division above the zero line  The settings at the bottom of the screen indicate that channel 3 is set to indicate 10 volts per division.  Hence, during the period of the cycle when the generator output is positive, it is applying approx. +12 volts to the gate of Q1, which should turn it on.

During that same portion of the cycle however, the channel 1 trace for the CSR indicates approx. zero volts at the CSR, as the trace is right at the zero line as indicated by the little line under the number 1 to the left of the screen.  The zero voltage at the CSR means zero current is flowing during that time period which means Q1 is not turning on.   So, the positive voltage at channel 3 is saying that Q1 ishould be turned on, but the channe 1 trace is saying Q1 is, for some reason, not turning on. 

In FIG. 5/Test 2, during that same period when the function generator is positive, channel 3 indicates that approx. +8 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 which again should turn Q1 on.  This time, however, the channel 1 trace indicates +.5 volts at the CSR during this period.  The +.5 volts tells us 2 amps are flowing through Q1 and, therefore, that Q1 is indeed turned on.

In all scope captures I have seen on and prior to 2-22-11 from this circuit, the performance is as indicated by FIG5/Test3.  That is, when the function generator output is positive, Q1 turns on and current flow is indicated by channel 1.

In all scope captures I have seen from after 2-22-11, when the function generator output is positive, no current flow is indicated by channel 1.

Although it remains possible that I am reading the scope wrong, I am using the same LeCroy operating info in all reads of the captures and all captures prior to 2-22-11 indicate that Q1 is operating correctly.  Conversely, using that same scope reading methodology, all captures after I have seen from after 2-22-11 indicate Q1 never turns on, even though the scope channel 3 is saying it should.

Regarding the Q2 bias current.

When the function generator output is a negative voltage, this negative voltage is applied to both the gate of Q1 and the source of Q2.  The negative voltage at the gate of Q1 does nothing with regard to Q1, except keep Q1 turned off.

However, that same negative voltage applied to the source of Q2 biases Q2 on.  The term "bias" is used as Q2 is not fully turned on but rather is turned on only slightly.  This is typical of most "linear" amplifiers and in this mode Q2 is not being used as a switch but rather as an amplifier.  The amount of bias current flowing during this period is determined by the function generator's open circuit voltage, its internal 50 ohm resistor, and the turn on voltage characteristics of Q2.  If the FG's offset control was rotated fully negative, the FG is capable of approx -14 volts at its output.  At that open circuit voltage, with the FG's internal 50 ohm impedance, one would predict/expect the IRFPG50 to flow approx. 200ma of current.  That 200ma is then the amount of DC current that is flowing from the Bat thru Rload, Q2, and the FG during the cycle period when the FG output is a negative voltage. 

The estimated 200ma is only an estimate.  Possibly the FG was not at -14 volts, but something much higher like -3 volts which would greatly reduce the bias current.  I am using the -14 as I read in your paper that the offset control was turned to it fully negative position (at least in one test).  However, it is also possible that Q2 was above 25C, which would significantly increase the bias current.  As well, MOSFET threshold voltage differs between devices of the the same part number.  With all these variables and no measurement made of the bias current, the 200ma is only an estimate and is very likely within +/- 50ma of the actual bias current for the FG at full negative offset.

I wish the exact bias current was known for a more accurate replication.  This can be determined if we knew the FG open circuit voltage, that is, its negative voltage while disconnected from the circuit.  When reconnected, the channel three trace would then give us the closed or in circuit voltage.  Using the difference between the open circuit and in circuit voltage and the Rgen of 50 ohms, the bias current could be determined fairly accurately.

As to evidence of bias current in the scope shots, that is what the discussion regarding the connection point of the FG lead's ground clip is about.  If it was connected to the BAT- instead of the CSR, the bias current would not be displayed on the scope traces.

However, even if the FG signal common is connected to the CSR, it would be difficult to see 200ma. on the CSR trace as that would amount to +50 millivolts at the CSR and the scope is set to 1 volt per division. 

Please feel free to print this response and show it to somebody. 

PW

 

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 04:39:26 AM
Go ahead, MH.... ask her for contact information for any of the seven "collaborators". Ask her who is preventing her from testing and why she "has no say" in the matter.

 :-X
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 04:48:44 AM
In FIG. 3/Test 1, channel 3 is the signal to the gate, correct?  The little line under the number 3 to the left of the screen indicates the "zero" line or "zero" position of the trace.  Any displayed signal that is above that line is a positive voltage.  Any signal displayed below that line is a negative voltage.

During the period when the function generator output is positive, the scope indicates that the signal during that period is just a bit over one major division above the zero line  The settings at the bottom of the screen indicate that channel 3 is set to indicate 10 volts per division.  Hence, during the period of the cycle when the generator output is positive, it is applying approx. +12 volts to the gate of Q1, which should turn it on.

During that same portion of the cycle however, the channel 1 trace for the CSR indicates approx. zero volts at the CSR, as the trace is right at the zero line as indicated by the little line under the number 1 to the left of the screen.  The zero voltage at the CSR means zero current is flowing during that time period which means Q1 is not turning on.   So, the positive voltage at channel 3 is saying that Q1 ishould be turned on, but the channe 1 trace is saying Q1 is, for some reason, not turning on. 

In FIG. 5/Test 2, during that same period when the function generator is positive, channel 3 indicates that approx. +8 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 which again should turn Q1 on.  This time, however, the channel 1 trace indicates +.5 volts at the CSR during this period.  The +.5 volts tells us 2 amps are flowing through Q1 and, therefore, that Q1 is indeed turned on.

In all scope captures I have seen on and prior to 2-22-11 from this circuit, the performance is as indicated by FIG5/Test3.  That is, when the function generator output is positive, Q1 turns on and current flow is indicated by channel 1.

In all scope captures I have seen from after 2-22-11, when the function generator output is positive, no current flow is indicated by channel 1.

Although it remains possible that I am reading the scope wrong, I am using the same LeCroy operating info in all reads of the captures and all captures prior to 2-22-11 indicate that Q1 is operating correctly.  Conversely, using that same scope reading methodology, all captures after I have seen from after 2-22-11 indicate Q1 never turns on, even though the scope channel 3 is saying it should.

Picowatt

Look again at those screen shots.  You'll see channels 1 through 4 - on the base line display.  It indicates that the display is DC.  Then look at the offset values that follow.  It indicates the PEAK TO PEAK VOLTAGES with their 'bias'.  That's the number to apply to the Channel 3 display as the Channel 3 display is actually and obviously AC.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 04:57:53 AM
Rosemary,

Are you talking about the colored horizontal boxes along the bottom of the screen?  The ones that say for example from FIG. 3:

1: 2.00V
DC1M(ohm)
ofs 4.56 volts

2: 100V
DC1M(ohm)
ofs -172

3: 10.0V
DC1M(ohm)
ofs -23V

etc,

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 04:58:09 AM
Regarding the Q2 bias current.

When the function generator output is a negative voltage, this negative voltage is applied to both the gate of Q1 and the source of Q2.  The negative voltage at the gate of Q1 does nothing with regard to Q1, except keep Q1 turned off.
Which means what?  That there's a positive signal applied to the Gate of Q1?  Shouldn't this allow for a positive flow from the battery supply?

Do you mind if we tackle just this question first?  It's germane to the argument.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 04:58:59 AM
Rosemary,

Are you talking about the colored horizontal boxes along the bottom of the screen?  The ones that say for example from FIG. 3:

1: 2.00V
DC1M(ohm)
ofs 4.56 volts

2: 100V
DC1M(ohm)
ofs -172

3: 10.0V
DC1M(ohm)
ofs -23V

etc,

PW
Yes
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 05:05:45 AM
Rosemary,

When the FG output is a negative voltage, a negative voltage is applied to the gate of Q1.  This does not turn on Q1, but keeps it in its off state.

Where did I say that during the portion of the FG cycle, when the FG output is a negative voltage, a "positive" voltage is applied to the gate of Q1?  I did not say that.  Obviously Q1 will turn on if its gate is made positive.  But I was discussing the portion of the cycle when the FG output is a negative voltage, and during that period, Q1 is off.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 05:08:47 AM
Rosemary,

When the FG output is a negative voltage, a negative voltage is applied to the gate of Q1.  This does not turn on Q1, but keeps it in its off state.

Where did I say that during the portion of the FG cycle, when the FG output is a negative voltage, a "positive" voltage is applied to the gate of Q1?  I did not say that.  Obviously Q1 will turn on if its gate is made positive.  But I was discussing the portion of the cycle when the FG output is a negative voltage, and during that period, Q1 is off.

PW
And so am I.  If the one gate is biased off - then the other is biased on.  I would have thought?

Again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 05:18:03 AM
Rosemary,

Regarding the scope labels.

Referring to FIG. 3 channel 3 for example, those numbers state the following:

"3: 10.0V"      This is the volts per division the vertical display is set at.  This means a major division, or 4 subdivisions vertically is equal to 10.0V

"DC 1M(ohm)   This says the scope input channel is DC coupled and the the input impedance is set to 1Megohm

"ofs" 23.oV"    This is the offset that has been applied to the input channel's display to position the trace as was done with the offset control.  This is similar to the vertical position control on an analog scope.  The reason the LeCroy places the little ground or zero line indicator to the left of the trace is so that you can keep track  of where the actual channel "zero" line is with respect to the traces position as you position the trace where you want it to be displayed.  This is not a measurement nor does it have anything to do with the signal being "AC".

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 05:21:22 AM
TK

I see you're still trying to interject and still trying to misrepresent.  When you ask Mile High this...
Go ahead, MH.... ask her for contact information for any of the seven "collaborators". Ask her who is preventing her from testing and why she "has no say" in the matter.
then presumably you're referring to this...

This is a critical flaw in your measurements and shame on you for intentionally changing the simplified schematic diagram in your two papers to where you show the function generator "negative" terminal connected before the current sensing resistor.
MileHigh - what amuses me most is that you really believe this.  For some reason you seem somewhat 'piqued' that we reference that CSR in the position where it really, really is. There are 7 of us collaborators.  That's an awful lot of us must be heavily committed to publicly and fraudulently misrepresenting the fact.  7 criminals who stand accused by you MileHigh?  With your conscience entirely untrammeled by concerns related to the effects of what may constitute 'slander'?  Judged 'guilty' notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary?  Because you 'prefer' to believe this?  I'm not sure who should be 'smitten' with a sense of shame - except that it most certainly is not ME nor any of my collaborators.  And in the light of your rather reckless indulgence in traducement - I doubt that can presume to occupy any moral high ground at all.  With or without respect. Golly. This is a critical flaw in your measurements and shame on you for intentionally changing the simplified schematic diagram in your two papers to where you show the function generator "negative" terminal connected before the current sensing resistor. MileHigh - what amuses me most is that you really believe this.  For some reason you seem somewhat 'piqued' that we reference that CSR in the position where it really, really is.  There are 7 of us collaborators.  That's an awful lot of us must be heavily committed to publicly and fraudulently misrepresenting the fact.  7 criminals who stand accused by you MileHigh?  With your conscience entirely untrammeled by concerns related to the effects of what may constitute 'slander'?  Judged 'guilty' notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary?  Because you 'prefer' to believe this?  I'm not sure who should be 'smitten' with a sense of shame - except that it most certainly is not ME nor any of my collaborators.  And in the light of your rather reckless indulgence in traducement - I doubt that can presume to occupy any moral high ground at all.  With or without respect. Golly.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 05:22:18 AM
And so am I.  If the one gate is biased off - then the other is biased on.  I would have thought?

Again,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

That is exactly what I said.  When the FG output is a negative voltage, Q1 is turned off and Q2 is biased on. 

We seem to be in agreement here!

And of course, conversely, when the FG output is a positive voltage, Q1 is turned on and Q2 is turned off.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 05:31:55 AM
Yes, Rosemary, I am referring to that quote. What is the contact information for any of your seven collaborators, and/or those people whose names appear on your paper? We have attempted to contact Donovan Martin, but he does not choose to respond. So some of us would like to get some information from your collaborators and co-authors. This is standard procedure in the scientific community. Also, it is standard and expected that RAW DATA from experiments used in papers be available to the reviewers and critics and anyone else who might ask. So... contact info for your seven collaborators please. Nobody said anything about accusing them as criminals EXCEPT YOU.

I also refer to your statement here:

Quote
I'm not sure that this is being correctly focused.  I have absolutely NO say as to when I'll be allowed to run these tests.

Of course, the Tesla longitudinal scalar wave quantum frequency NERD preventer is directed, by linecast, at the entire NERD team, since I can't focus it all that well through the center of the planet, so it's actually covering the entire tip of Africa. Nobody in that entire zone will be able to test a NERD device as long as the Tesla Preventer is running. By the way, did you know that the Earth is hollow at the center? It's a fact, and there is no gravity there either.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 05:32:23 AM
Regarding the scope labels.

Referring to FIG. 3 channel 3 for example, those numbers state the following:

"3: 10.0V"      This is the volts per division the vertical display is set at.  This means a major division, or 4 subdivisions vertically is equal to 10.0V

"DC 1M(ohm)   This says the scope input channel is DC coupled and the the input impedance is set to 1Megohm
Yes

"ofs" 23.oV"    This is the offset that has been applied to the input channel's display to position the trace as was done with the offset control.  This is similar to the vertical position control on an analog scope.  The reason the LeCroy places the little ground or zero line indicator to the left of the trace is so that you can keep track  of where the actual channel "zero" line is with respect to the traces position as you position the trace where you want it to be displayed.  This is not a measurement nor does it have anything to do with the signal being "AC".
Picowatt - not actually.  What it is giving you is the peak to peak voltages and it does not say 23 volts peak to peak.  It says 23 volts peak to peak with a negative bias. (-23) Which means that if you apply the appropriate AC component to this - then there is more negative than positive in those peaks.  On all waveforms.  Therefore there is the easy transposition of an AC coupled value - AS REQUIRED.  It is just yet another of those many excellent features of that instrument.

Regards again
Rosemary
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 05:37:49 AM
Rosemary,

That is exactly what I said.  When the FG output is a negative voltage, Q1 is turned off and Q2 is biased on. 

We seem to be in agreement here!

And of course, conversely, when the FG output is a positive voltage, Q1 is turned on and Q2 is turned off.

PW
But picowatt - with respect.  You argued that with that negative bias at Q1 then energy was being returned to the battery supply via RLoad.  And what I'm asking you is how can this be when the current from the battery supply is enabled at Q2?  Or are you conceding that there is no flow of current during this period?  I'm not sure that you can have it both ways.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 05:39:00 AM
@PW: Perhaps something like this could help your efforts to explain how to read an oscilloscope to Rosemary.

( If it's not a number in a box, she has difficulty with it, and we know that all numbers in boxes must be correct... else why put them in a box? )

These are of course shots from the video; I haven't bothered to do the same for the shots in the paper because they are clearly garbage: unknown circuit, evidence for blown mosfet(s), etc. The video of course used the common ground point for the FG negative lead, in spite of its two false diagrams, the one shown and the one claimed until .99 straightened it out.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 05:42:21 AM
See, PW? She knows more about using oscilloscopes than you do, or will ever learn. Can't you see that there are NUMBERS in BOXES?

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 05:47:38 AM
Oh... I almost forgot... the Mystery Scopeshot.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 05:53:43 AM
Rosemary,

Again, referring to the portion of the cycle when the FG output is a negative voltage, Q1 is turned off.

At the same time, Q2 is biased on and allows about 200 ma. of DC current to flow.

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 05:56:29 AM
Rosemary,

Again, referring to the portion of the cycle when the FG output is a negative voltage, Q1 is turned off.

At the same time, Q2 is biased on and allows about 200 ma. of DC current to flow.

PW
You argued that this returned to the battery via RLoad.  I'm asking you again.  How?

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 06:22:36 AM
Rosemary,

As I said, I am not familiar with your LeCroy.  It is, however, my understanding that the "ofs" numbers, that is, the indicated offset, basically describes how far the zero volts line is above or below the center of the screen.

Again, referring to FIG3 in paper 1, the channel one trace zero volts line at the left of the screen is about 2.25 full divisions above the center of the screen.  That channel is set to 2 volts per division.  2.25 divisions times 2V per division is 4.5 volts.  The offset reading for channel one says 4.56V, which is in good agreement with my "optical" read of the zero volt line position.

The channel 2 zero volt line to the left is about 1.75 divisions below the screen center.  That channel is set to 100 volts per division.  1.75 times 100 equals 175.  As the zero volt indicator to the left for channel 2 is below the screen center, it will be a negative number.  The indicated offset for channel 2 is -176V, again in good agreement with my optical read.

The channel 3 zero volts indicator is about 2.3 divisions below the center line.  Channel 3 is set to 10volts per division, 2.3 times 10V equals 23.  As the zero volt line is below the center of the screen, it will also be a negative value.  The indicated offset is -23V, again in good agreement with my read.

I believe I am reading the scope correctly.

As my eyes grow old, I truly dislike having to read divisions off a scope, and the LeCroy's are hard to see.  I use my cursors all the time!

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 06:27:39 AM
(snip)
With this knowledge I can now articulate the proper "LEDs of Doom" configuration for you in negative oscillation mode:

1.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the CSR.  Both will light up because of the AC signal from the AC output from the AC-coupled Q2-Q5 MOSFET oscillator.

2.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the function generator output.  Only one LED will light up indicating that current is flowing clockwise through the circuit and the battery set is discharging.

The days for your proposition are numbered.

MileHigh

Um... I thought we already found out what happens when a LED is put into TarBaby's main current path. And now... we've found out again. You owe me another two green LEDs. But I can't get oscillations with the LEDs in series at the normal gate drive setting. Increasing gate drive results in ONE LED lighting, the one that is correctly biased but no oscillations. Increasing the negative amplitude further results in letting the white smoke out... or as just now, a POP and a spalled off bit of exploded LED.

Now... in PARALLEL with the CVR... that's another story and we already  know the outcome from that, too, I think.

When we start blowing up components, I know we are making progress.

I just can't figure out in which direction.


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 06:30:15 AM
Rosemary,

During the period of the FG output when its output is a negative voltage, Q1 is turned off and Q2 is biased on.

The bias current is approximated to be 200ma.

If the FG lead's ground clip is attached to the BAT-, then:

The Q2 bias current flows from the battery, thru Rload, thru Q2, thru the FG, and back to the battery.

If the FG lead's ground clip is attached to the end of the CSR opposite the BAT-, then:

The Q2 bias current flows from the battery, thru Rload, thru Q2, thru the FG, thru the CSR, and back to the battery.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 06:39:38 AM
@PW: As you  may know, I use another LeCroy toy WaveSomething, a 104x IIRC, at the other non-disclosed location where I sometimes operate. It's the scope I showed in the JT/measurement pitfall demo that Rosemary thinks I faked somehow. I also use an older "real" LeCroy DSO that doesn't run as an application on top of Windows, a powerhouse 9370M.

I assure you that you are correct in your interpretation of the "offset" indication in the channel settings boxes and wrt the "eyeball" determinations using the LeCroy zero-indicator little lines under the channel numbers at the left of the screen. You've got it right and Rosemary's "explanation" is, as usual, so much word salad. The channel trace offset is used in some of the scope's internal math but I don't think any of that is invoked in this case.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 06:51:32 AM
TK,

Thanks for the confirmation, but the LeCroy manual is very ambiguous as to the operation of the offset control.  It said use offset to adjust the zero volt level, and in another section, to use offset to position the trace.  I hoped the two would track!

After studying the screen shots, I thought I had it figured correctly.

Oh how I miss cursors!  All scopes here without cursors are under the bench for emergency use only!

Fortunately, I have plenty with cursors on top of the benches.

Regarding the bias current versus thru the CSR or not:

Even if the bias current was not in the CSR calculations, and one were to add +50mv to the CSR mean, that still does not appear to provide the required current to produce the observed heating.

Assuming Rosemary's heat profile is correct to within 10% or better, as well as her Rload temps, I am still having a hard time finding about 4 to 5 watts.  In fact, heat profile and temps could be a bit further off than 10% and I would still be a bit puzzled by about 3 watts.

PW

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 06:59:43 AM
Here's a little blast from the past using a differential voltage probe and a non-contact current probe for the data, and also showing how to use the real math capability of a LeCroy digital oscilloscope -- even a basic, bottomline one -- to make a point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk)
This isn't off topic at all, because it demonstrates that the scopes DO have the ability to extract the information we would like to see... if only used properly.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 07:16:02 AM
TK,

How much heating of the load do you think your circuit can accomplish if you just bias on Q2 so that it oscillates?

Possibly consider connecting a bench supply set to -14V or so thru a 50R resistor to the source of Q2 so that only Q2 is oscillating and Q1 remains off.  It would be interesting to see what the oscillator section can do by itself regarding heat at the load.  If I am correct about the Q1 issue, all the March tests that indicated heating were able to do so without Q1 functioning.

If you have time of course.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 08:26:01 AM
As I said, I am not familiar with your LeCroy.  It is, however, my understanding that the "ofs" numbers, that is, the indicated offset, basically describes how far the zero volts line is above or below the center of the screen.

Again, referring to FIG3 in paper 1, the channel one trace zero volts line at the left of the screen is about 2.25 full divisions above the center of the screen.  That channel is set to 2 volts per division.  2.25 divisions times 2V per division is 4.5 volts.  The offset reading for channel one says 4.56V, which is in good agreement with my "optical" read of the zero volt line position.

The channel 2 zero volt line to the left is about 1.75 divisions below the screen center.  That channel is set to 100 volts per division.  1.75 times 100 equals 175.  As the zero volt indicator to the left for channel 2 is below the screen center, it will be a negative number.  The indicated offset for channel 2 is -176V, again in good agreement with my optical read.

The channel 3 zero volts indicator is about 2.3 divisions below the center line.  Channel 3 is set to 10volts per division, 2.3 times 10V equals 23.  As the zero volt line is below the center of the screen, it will also be a negative value.  The indicated offset is -23V, again in good agreement with my read.

I believe I am reading the scope correctly.
picowatt

Read the dc voltage across the shunt as per the display = -28.1mV.                  peak to peak  4.56V 
Then read the dc voltage across the battery as per the display =  73.8V            peak to peak  -172V

I think you'll agree that this conforms to the 'explanation'.  Those ofs voltages relate to ac coupling with the offset determined as AC.  The fact is that we didn't even use the display to record the applied voltage signal but rather its frequency.  My own computation as you now ask for this is roughly 4.5V or thereby - applied at the Gate of Q1.

I'll get back to the rest of your points later on today.  Meanwhile for those of you who celebrate the day for any reason at all - as I do - may you all have a truly happy day. I'll be back here, God willing - later on this afternoon.  Meanwhile I intend doing my own bit of partying.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED
Here - finally is that download.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
TK,

How much heating of the load do you think your circuit can accomplish if you just bias on Q2 so that it oscillates?

Possibly consider connecting a bench supply set to -14V or so thru a 50R resistor to the source of Q2 so that only Q2 is oscillating and Q1 remains off.  It would be interesting to see what the oscillator section can do by itself regarding heat at the load.  If I am correct about the Q1 issue, all the March tests that indicated heating were able to do so without Q1 functioning.

If you have time of course.

PW
I have time of course.
I  think there is some heating of the load in this mode, consistent with your determinations of the current to be expected. What I believe is the following "uncharitable" interpretation, considering the casual attitude towards raw data and accurate reporting shown by the NERD team.
I believe the "five watt" figure comes from the math trace "numbers box" on the LeCroy. She is simply multiplying the raw CVR voltage drop by the battery voltage to obtain the math trace, thinking this gives her an instantaneous power curve. The data box reports the parameters selected for this trace in units of "VV", since that's what whoever set the math up told the scope the probes were used for. With her demonstrated deficiencies in observation and eyesight, it's plausible that she interpreted this VV as W and again took the boxed numbers at face value. In the LeCroys I use, the math user can tell the scope if a probe represents a current value and also THE VALUE OF THE CVR SHUNT, so then the scope's parameters box will display the correct units of "VA" or even "W". If a true current probe is in use, like in my JT demo, the scope autodetects it and displays its values in Amps instead of volts, and the calculation of the power curve will be using the right units. Garbage values in this case, but at least the right units.
So... she's reading "VV" as "W" off the math trace parameters box, and not accounting at all for the 0.25 ohm value of the CVR. I think this is the case, but she denies it.

So what I think is that the resistor heats during the "tuning" mode, in other words, while setting the circuit up and perhaps turning some mosfets on for a while... then when the oscillations are established and data recording begins, the load is already warm or even hot from the tuning. It has happened here, and I've documented it in a cleverly hidden video. And then the 200 mA during the oscs is enough to keep it from cooling off back to ambient for a while, or even warm it up a bit if it's cold.

And I can just use the F43 set to DC to make the required gate signal for continuous oscillations. This will also preserve the current path through the FG.... for better or worse, but there it is.

OK... data. I've used the F43 to make a DC output, and used its offset to move the DC down to the level where oscillation begins. I then move it further down until my inline cheapo DMM indicates around 200 mA. I measure the frequency of the oscs, and since I still have the 5 IRF830as in there it is around 4 MHz. (Sorry, somebody seems to have cornered the local market in PG50s, I don't have a complete set to use). I started with the load at 80 F (it is 10.3 ohms made of 5, 50-ohm Claristat wirewound ceramic tube 12-watt resistors in parallel, immersed in an insulated container with 250 mL mineral oil, specific heat 1.67 Joules per gram per degree C.)
After maybe 20 minutes the load is indicating around 86 degrees (analog thermometer; the RF messes with the digital ones). It's probably still warming up.

If the meter is averaging correctly and there's 200 mA in the circuit the load should be dissipating less than half a Watt. I also took the meter and put it in strict series with the FG's positive lead to the circuit. It indicates that same current... showing, I think, the current path through the FG itself. The open circuit voltage of the FG at this setting is -12 V.

Right now the load oil is at 90 degrees. Sorry, I approached this one casually and haven't been recording times at all, but it's been about an hour since I started at 80 degrees F.

I am fairly sure that the load used by the NERDs was not immersed in anything during these low-power tests, it just hung out there and had a thermocouple attached directly to it. My own digital thermometer cheapos go crazy from the RF in the circuit during oscs, but I do have an ExoTherm adapter and TC for my old Fluke 83 that might behave differently.... I suppose I'll have to dig it out.

So let's do a plausibility check. If the load is dissipating (.2)(.2)(10.3) = 0.41 Watts into the oil, and a Watt is a Joule per second, and I've run for about an hour, that's 60x60 seconds or 3600 seconds, so that makes 3600 seconds x 0.41 J/sec = 1480 Joules. If my 250 mL oil, weighing about 0.83g/mL x 250 mL = 208 g, has risen 4  degrees C, how much did that take? 4 x 208 x 1.67 = 1390 Joules.
So it's plausible to get significant load heating even at a current of 200 mA as indicated by the inline ammeter, DC drive at -12 V with the oscillations.
But I'm using the 830a mosfets. And my battery is still over 36 volts, even under the load.

(Edited to correct the temp rise in C conversion)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 08:48:21 AM
TK,

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

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

PW







Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 08:54:47 AM
TK,

Did you just now do that test?

Dang,

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 09:05:13 AM
TK,

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

PW
Gate drive looks like about  8 to ten V to me too. My items 14 and 15. Cursors... foiled again. When I made the annotations I measured as best I could and that's about what I came up with too (but I can't find my annotation captions right now...)
The CVR trace looks like at _most_ 1 and a half minor divs above baseline, for a voltage of 1.5 x .5 or 0.75 V which would be around 3 Amps.
This is one of the very few scopeshots that shows the mosfet common drain trace, the green trace. You can see the voltage drop there as the Q1 mosfet turns on with the positive gate pulse.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 09:12:10 AM
TK,

Did you just now do that test?

Dang,

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

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

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 09:13:43 AM
TK,

Excellent write up of that last test.

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

Any thoughts?

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 09:33:01 AM
TK,

Excellent write up of that last test.

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

Any thoughts?

PW
Thanks. Rosemary might not agree with you though.

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

The problem with Rosemary's program, as I've said before, is that it is NOT difficult to reproduce most of her data. It is when she starts doing "math" on stuff that she goes astray, and also there's that fundamental pig-headedness that prevents her from seriously considering that she might be wrong about _anything_. So she collects data, and when you finally figure out under what crazy conditions that data was collected, you can do it too, easily. But when you collect the _right_ data to answer the fundamental questions, you find standard circuit behaviour accounts for all the data that at first seemed so crazy... and of course the fundamental claim breaks down at that point.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 09:40:54 AM
I forgot to mention that the inline ammeter indicates zero current as the DC offset is increased from 0 going negative, until the oscillations begin at around -3 or -4 volts or so. Then the ammeter jumps up to around 10-20 mA at oscillation onset, and as I increase the FG offset to around -12 volts the ammeter indicates a smooth rise to 200mA, and could go higher if the FG is set more negative.
Going positive it takes a full +5 volts to turn on the Q1 and it's pretty much fully on at 7 volts, no oscillations of course.

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

So it seems clear that the amplitude of the oscillations can set the level of the small current passing around the circuit, and this level in turn is set by the negative bias on Q2's source pins from the FG's negative voltage excursions, or in the present test, straight DC. Looking at the drain trace at 50 v/div and cranking the FG max negative so there are 340 mA on the inline meter, I see apparent oscillation amplitude of 120 V p-p.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 09:47:48 AM
TK,
That would mean a blown mosfet was replaced between March 2 and March 12 2011, and then another Q1 failure happened before April 30.

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

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

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

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

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 10:07:22 AM
TK,
That would mean a blown mosfet was replaced between March 2 and March 12 2011, and then another Q1 failure happened before April 30.

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

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

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

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

As to the Q1 failures: look at the history. The first instantiation used only the single Q1 mosfet on a small uchannel heatsink. And they were claiming to use a 72 volt battery pack at that time. High heat mode, positive gate drive == blown mosfet under those conditions. So they reduced their battery pack to 60 volts and added 4 more mosfets in strict parallel to handle the current, and placed them on big heatsinks. BUT THEY WIRED THE 4 IN WRONG accidentally and the story of the Q2 oscillations begins. Q1, remember, is still on a small heatsink, the Q2s are in backwards, the negative pulses make small heat by oscillating the Q2s while Q1 is resting, out of the circuit, or open completely. They do go open, or as the one I've got, go partially shorted, as well as completely shorted.  Now they still think they are operating with 5 mosfets in strict parallel-- view the video for the diagram and the narration. So now, when they go again for high heat mode.... they now stress Q1 again, and if it's blown it doesn't heat, so they look and replace it and put a little better heatsink on it... but they still think they are in strict parallel, so they go again... and it blows again, with the 60 volt pack. So... and I believe this is the smoking gun that justifies this chain of reasoning--- they pull out yet another battery, leaving only 48 volts to use for the high heat mode, and the Q1 survives, barely.
It was only later on, well after that March demo, that the "mistake" was discovered and the correct schematic, showing the separation of Q1 and the Q2s, was figured out by .99, I think.
So yes, I believe they blew the Q1 mosfet several times, from overheat stress, which could leave it open, which wouldn't even show up in the low heat, Q2 oscillating mode.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 10:08:45 AM
So, it is possible that the bias current can be as low as 10-20 ma and still oscillate.  Then depending on Rosemary's FG settings, it is possible the bias current discussed is much lower in some of the tests.  I note only one test in the paper where it was specifically stated that the FG was set to its full negative offset.

PW

Don't forget my data right now is from 830as. They might be easier to turn on than the PG50s and they do have a lower Rdss.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 03:49:35 PM
Picowatt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kindest regards
Rosemary
ADDED
By the way - I can do nothing to stop that discussion on my thread - but I will distance myself from it with the authority of it being entirely based on deliberate misrepresentation.  And it will show us all that picowatt shares TK's partiality.  Which will be a shame.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 05:20:51 PM
Note the values listed for the Math trace in the parameters box. (Unfortunately not indexed by my annotation, but clearly visible anyway.)

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

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

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

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 05:34:03 PM
I see that my NERD test preventer is working better than ever today.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

If "low heat mode" using 200 mA (from oscs or ? ) must be used, then some means of preventing the FG... OR the 555 timer circuit ... from providing power to the load must also be used.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 05:36:27 PM
Note the values listed for the Math trace in the parameters box. (Unfortunately not indexed by my annotation, but clearly visible anyway.)

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

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

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

My dear Tinsel Koala

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

Rosie Pose 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 05:41:03 PM
I see that my NERD test preventer is working better than ever today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again - and ever,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 05:57:13 PM
There has never been anyone who has said so little while talking so much, as you, Rosie poser.

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

Meanwhile, at least Somebody is testing Something, and I am quite sure that YOU won't be testing anything anytime soon.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
There has never been anyone who has said so little while talking so much, as you, Rosie poser.

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

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

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

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

ever
Rosie Posie

Added
And it is indeed a pleasure to get the occasional word in - between the multiple posts that you manage in order to dominate this thread.  My concern is that you're neglecting your own.  AND you're neglecting that cold fusion number.  You need to pull finger.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 06:32:17 PM
Rosemary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will take me half an hour or so; I should be able to get it done this afternoon, after I take my feral chowyote dog out to hunt for Easter Egg hunters.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 08:19:22 PM
I ran up one of my simulations of the RAT circuit with two MOSFETs, Q1 and Q2, and you were pretty close PW, the average battery/FG current is about 175mA in my sim running in negative bias mode (Q1 inactive, Q2 actively oscillating).

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

It's interesting to note, that in my sim, the VGS does not seem to exceed -4V, even if I set the FG to -9V. Something is limiting it to about -4V.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 08:54:22 PM
TK:

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

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

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

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

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

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 08:54:53 PM
I ran up one of my simulations of the RAT circuit with two MOSFETs, Q1 and Q2, and you were pretty close PW, the average battery/FG current is about 175mA in my sim running in negative bias mode (Q1 inactive, Q2 actively oscillating).

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

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

Which RAT circuit Poynty?  There are so many.  And WHAT is a VGS?
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 09:02:10 PM
Which RAT circuit Poynty?  There are so many.  And WHAT is a VGS?
Rosie Pose

Rosemary,

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

"VGS" is read: "voltage-gate-to-source". So this is the voltage measured from/between the gate and source legs of the MOSFET(s).
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 09:02:14 PM
TK:

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

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

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

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

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

MileHigh

My dear MileHigh,

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

Rosie Posie

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

as ever
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 09:07:06 PM
Rosemary,

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

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

Ta muchly Ponty Point

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 08, 2012, 09:19:30 PM
Guys here's the actual situation that I find myself in.  Harti has proposed - in principle to allow me moderation of my own thread - provided only that I do NOT use that thread to publish any test related to the proposed definitive battery draw down test using the function generator.  He claims that any results there will be skewed by the energy put into the system via the signal generator.  I may ONLY test the 555.  The down side of this is

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Guys,

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

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

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

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

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

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 ;)



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 09:23:43 PM
Rosemary:

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

Rosie Posie

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

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

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

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 09:24:29 PM
An Easter egg for TK:
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 09:33:31 PM
@MH: You are confusing me with all these LEDs. Could you please draw a diagram for me? I've got lots of red and green LEDs to blow up and I like doing it.

@.99: I am glad the sim sees the limiting of the voltage that the gate driver puts out.... If I am understanding you correctly this happens in the real circuit too, it's what I've been calling "draw down" as if the FG were heavily loaded by a low impedance load. However, increasing the amplitude of the FG output at this point causes an increase in _current_ but not voltage. And I think Rosemary's Instek is doing this too, based on the reports and scope traces.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch..... What's that, Lassie? Timmy is stuck in the well..... again ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 09:35:24 PM
Rosemary:

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

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

MileHigh

What's to study MileHigh?  What you're inferring is as obvious as a slap.  Where you 'error' - as it's referred to - is the ASSUMPTION that the current sensing resistor is where you've put it.  It IS there in the demo vid.  It is NOT there in the tests relating to our paper.  This point of yours is as repetitive as your need to keep referring to my claims related to batteries recharging.  Both you and TK harp on and on and on about points that have been put to bed WAAAY back.  AGAIN.  There are 7 of us collaborators.  We all are responsible for the facts in those papers of ours.  And we ALL concur that the CSR is NOT where you've shown it.  But again.  I'm not sure if you want the facts or if you're just anxious to keep showing us all those pretty arrows of yours.  Whichever.  Feel free.  Do as you feel needs must.  It's just that you seem to assume that our readers have as short an attention span as you.  Or you assume that - like you - they never read my answers.  I sincerely hope that your assumptions are wrong. 

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 09:40:56 PM
 
Quote
There is NOT ONE RELIABLE COMPUTATION ON THIS FORUM THAT HAS EVER BEEN MANAGED BY POYNTY, PROFESSOR STEVEN E JONES, TINSEL KOALA - OR ANY OF THEM.   And, frankly, I've had a belly full.

Can you believe this ignorant arrogance? If I didn't know the source, I'd say it was impossible for a human being intelligent enough to use a computer to get stuff SO SCREWED UP that she doesn't even see the difference between 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second, and 1 Joule = 1 Watt per second (sic).


@MH: Thanks for the Easter Egg ! Can you put in your exact LED proposal too please? I'm having a lot of fun here, refuting Rosemary point by point by point all along the line.


@Rosemary: Your seven collaborators: Contact information please. Your raw data: make it available for inspection please.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 09:44:34 PM
@MH: You are confusing me with all these LEDs. Could you please draw a diagram for me? I've got lots of red and green LEDs to blow up and I like doing it.

@.99: I am glad the sim sees the limiting of the voltage that the gate driver puts out.... If I am understanding you correctly this happens in the real circuit too, it's what I've been calling "draw down" as if the FG were heavily loaded by a low impedance load. However, increasing the amplitude of the FG output at this point causes an increase in _current_ but not voltage. And I think Rosemary's Instek is doing this too, based on the reports and scope traces.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch..... What's that, Lassie? Timmy is stuck in the well..... again ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0)

LOL.  That would be a miracle of some considerable proportions.  Golly.  We now have the advent of current flow that is entirely unrelated to voltage.  And the joke is that I'm the one accused of introducing new science concepts.  If there was any basis of truth is this proposal then I assure you that over unity is a doddle - compared to this claim.  Guys - our TK is branching out into new physics which he's trying impose on us with the same abandon as he imposes his definitions of Alpha rays.  Perhaps he should go back to the wiki definition and look up inductive laws.  With luck it will be as badly explained as alpha emissions.  Then he can, indeed, invent his new standard for our standard model.  What a joke.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 09:52:50 PM
Meanwhile, back at the ranch..... What's that, Lassie? Timmy is stuck in the well..... again ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0)

TK,

You're simply a veritable circuit-building, video-producing churning MACHINE.
 ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 09:54:01 PM
@MH: You are confusing me with all these LEDs. Could you please draw a diagram for me? I've got lots of red and green LEDs to blow up and I like doing it.

@.99: I am glad the sim sees the limiting of the voltage that the gate driver puts out.... If I am understanding you correctly this happens in the real circuit too, it's what I've been calling "draw down" as if the FG were heavily loaded by a low impedance load. However, increasing the amplitude of the FG output at this point causes an increase in _current_ but not voltage. And I think Rosemary's Instek is doing this too, based on the reports and scope traces.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch..... What's that, Lassie? Timmy is stuck in the well..... again ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKGf_2bt0)

I no longer watch your videos TK.  I find the lighting way too suspect.  But hopefully your 'followers' will rally.  And you really do need a manicure.  Or just try soap and water.  It works rather well.

Rosie Poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Boom!
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 10:00:22 PM
Boom!

golly
 8)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 10:16:11 PM
@Rosemary: Your seven collaborators: Contact information please. Your raw data: make it available for inspection please.

@TK:   Your name: Contact information please.  Your raw data: make it available for inspection please.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 10:21:45 PM
Rosie Posie:

Quote
It IS there in the demo vid.  It is NOT there in the tests relating to our paper.

So the demo clip is complete junk and should be ignored?  Is that what you are saying?

My spider senses are sensing some mendacious mendacities.

Quote
I no longer watch your videos TK.  I find the lighting way too suspect.  But hopefully your 'followers' will rally.

Little Miss Dismissive MOSFET,
Dissing the world away.
Such poor manners,
Dreams of trolls and spammers,
Mendacious, I would say!

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 10:38:11 PM
@MH: OK, I understand now and will try it after a while.

.99: In the video I realize that I'm oscillating the Q1 mosfet because I've got the 555 pin 3 going to the FG + location on the circuit, but now I've fixed that, simply by routing the Pin 3 to the FG - location on the circuit (duh). Using a variable power supply at 10 volts input to the 555 circuit, I have perfectly stable oscillations on the Q2 mosfet drains (and everywhere else of course) and a reading on the inline meter of about 320 mA..... and the load is warming nicely. (9 volts from the 9v battery wasn't quite enough to get stable in the q2 osc mode.) I found that the 555 gets hot and glitchy so I put a heat sink on it and now it is perfectly stable, has been running the Tar Baby and heating the load with Q2 oscs only for an hour or so, load is up to 104 F.

Rosemary, you are the very definition, the perfect textbook example, of pathological wilful ignorance. Watch my videos or don't.... fall more and more behind the discussion and progress..... lose track of your mendacities while trying to find any reason not to test...

Meanwhile, real work and progress continues, not with your "cooperation" but IN SPITE OF IT.

And as to my contact info: I am not trying to publish a scientific paper reporting an experiment that claims a miracle in peer reviewed journals. YOU ARE. The referees of journal articles are ALWAYS anonymous.

And as to my raw data: every bit of it is publicly available, posted on the internet, to those with the wits to look at it. Yours? Not.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 10:44:53 PM
I ran up one of my simulations of the RAT circuit with two MOSFETs, Q1 and Q2, and you were pretty close PW, the average battery/FG current is about 175mA in my sim running in negative bias mode (Q1 inactive, Q2 actively oscillating).

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

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

Hi all,

Lots to do today so I have to keep it short.

.99

In the common gate configuration, the Vgs will always be at the turn on voltage of the device for the current being drawn.  The device will, in effect, self-regulate (pretty fair current requlator, bipolars are a bit better in my opinon, more predictable Vbe).  If the gate is grounded, and a fixed negative voltage is applied to the source via a resistor, varying Rsource will vary Ids with little change in Vgs.  Also, if Rsource is constant and the negative voltage to Rsource is varied, the Ids can again be varied as Vgs remains constant.  At all times, Vgs will be relatively constant.  At the edge of the device turn on (i.e., at very low Ids) things are very non-linear and Vgs will vary a bit as Ids is increased, but once you get close to ohmic, Vgs should be fairly constant (tempco's and the like not withstanding) and vary only a bit. 

The Vdrop across Rsource divided by Rsource is a good way to measure/calculate Ibias.

We know in Rosemary's gen, Rsource (actually Rgen) is 50R.  But, we do not know the Vdrop across Rgen as we do not have the open circuit voltage of the FG so Ibias can only be guessed at based on text comments regarding FG settings.  If you look at all the scope captures, the negative voltage depicted as being applied to the source of Q2 during osc is always a relatively constant DC value (one has to optically integrate the HF noise on the source drive), as it is doing precisely what you are seeing the device do, i.e., trying to maintain a constant Vgs.

TK,

Thanks for doing that experiment last night!  Do you ever sleep?

Rather than use a 555, I would try a variation of .99's burst osc circuit.  Pull out Q1 for now.  Put a 50R resistor between the source of Q2 and the CSR.  Use your F43 as a pwr supply, tie the signal common to the CSR, or to BAT- for now.  Decouple across the FG at the board with some caps such as an electrolytic and a paralleled ceramic, values not critical.  Then run a few inches of wire from the gate of Q2 to the signal side of the two parallel caps decoupling the FG (clip lead?).  Measure VDC across the 50R at Q2's source and slowly adjust the FG towards a positive voltage until the Vdrop on the 50R says you are at 100ma.  Vgen should now be at 5 volts+Vgs.  As .99 has done in his sims, you may have to play with the length of wire (inductance) going to the gate (or coil it up) to get an osc.  Alternately, a bit more wire between the Q2 source and the 50R may be needed to get the osc (emulates FG lead inductance in original setup).  .99 uses a diode from the Q2 gate to the Q2 source to emulate the body diode in Q1.  It should not be needed for osc but it does shape the waveform a bit.  You can give it a try.  Have a look at his schematic. 

.99, possibly you could post your burst osc schematic here?  We could discuss its validity as a possible alternative to Rosemary's circuit.

The nice thing about this method of bias is that the bias voltage applied to the gate will draw very little power (insignificant), as at DC, the gate is a very high R.  Using a 555 or similar in the source leg will require the 555 circuit to carry/handle Ibias.  That will likely require a buffered circuit and a pretty good battery or another supply to operate the 555 circuit for the duration of a rundown test.   If this alternate bias method is not acceptable for whatever reasons, the 555 may have to be dealt with at some point.

Rosemary,

I read your comments and I apologize but I really don't have time to respond at length right now.  I enjoy a good technical discussion but will do what I must to stay out of the "fray".  When I read this thread from the beginning, as soon as I read any "attitude" (from anyone), I scroll on until the conversation returns to a more technical nature, in doing so, it makes this rather lengthy thread a very short read!   

In any event, if you consider my discussions as "off topic", I will certainly honor that opinion and move on.  I mean no disrespect to anyone. 

Have to go for now,

PW   

   
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 10:46:18 PM
LOL.  That would be a miracle of some considerable proportions.  Golly.  We now have the advent of current flow that is entirely unrelated to voltage.  And the joke is that I'm the one accused of introducing new science concepts.  If there was any basis of truth is this proposal then I assure you that over unity is a doddle - compared to this claim.  Guys - our TK is branching out into new physics which he's trying impose on us with the same abandon as he imposes his definitions of Alpha rays.  Perhaps he should go back to the wiki definition and look up inductive laws.  With luck it will be as badly explained as alpha emissions.  Then he can, indeed, invent his new standard for our standard model.  What a joke.

Rosemary

Once again you are deliberately or stupidly misinterpreting the discussion of the voltage floor that we are seeing in the sim and the real circuit. You are obfuscating real understanding of this phenomenon.
And alpha "rays" are particles: helium nuclei stripped of all electrons and accelerated to moderate velocities by electric fields (since they are charged) and/or nuclear processes including decay of unstable nuclei.
Beta particles are ORDINARY ELECTRONS, moving rapidly, charged, slightly massive and are produced by many processes among which is Beta decay of a nucleon which is mediated by the weak nuclear interaction (aka force).
GAMMA RAYS are photons of electromagnetic radiation JUST LIKE LIGHT, are not charged, are massless yet carry momentum due to their velocity, and move at the velocity of light. The only "particulate" character of EM PHOTONS is due to their photonic nature... which in turn is only due to our lack of understanding. OURs, not yours, you've got it all explained using zipons at 2c, don't you.
Idiot.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 10:51:15 PM
@PW: have you not seen the 555 circuit in operation? It is working fine. I can try your variation too, of course... but at this point I don't really see a reason to, since the basic astable 555 works so well. Your point about the power supply or battery is well taken... I think that the 555 is injecting some power from its supply into the circuit and will need isolation somehow...unless that kills the oscs.
Since I have these H11D1 optocouplers here I might try them first.

ETA: Load is at 110 F, inline current 310 mA, 555 supply at 10 volts, everything is rock-stable, Q2s are slightly warm on their heatsinks, Q1 is stone cold... but needs to be in the socket or the oscillations stop. Drain oscillations as shown in the screenshot above in an earlier post.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 10:55:43 PM
TK,

I see you've already jumped on the 555 circuit!

Never mind,

Carry on

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 10:56:43 PM
Rosemary,

I read your comments and I apologize but I really don't have time to respond at length right now.  I enjoy a good technical discussion but will do what I must to stay out of the "fray".  When I read this thread from the beginning, as soon as I read any "attitude" (from anyone), I scroll on until the conversation returns to a more technical nature, in doing so, it makes this rather lengthy thread a very short read!   

In any event, if you consider my discussions as "off topic", I will certainly honor that opinion and move on.  I mean no disrespect to anyone. 

Have to go for now,

PW   
Thank you picawatt.  I propose you take this discussion to TK's thread.  That's way more appropriate.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 08, 2012, 11:17:10 PM
Rosemary,

What are valid discussions for this thread?  Again, I mean you no disrespect, but the title appears to refer to the flat battery test you opened with, but it was only briefly discussed.  As most of the discussion appeared to be with respect to your COP=infinity claim, the circuit that demonstrates that, and possible ways to verify the claim, I thought an analysis and discussion of the presented data was "on topic". 

I want to "play by the rules", but I guess I would need to know what the rules are.  It is indeed your thread so please let me know. 

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2012, 11:20:24 PM

And as to my contact info: I am not trying to publish a scientific paper reporting an experiment that claims a miracle in peer reviewed journals. YOU ARE. The referees of journal articles are ALWAYS anonymous.

And as to my raw data: every bit of it is publicly available, posted on the internet, to those with the wits to look at it. Yours? Not.

TK - you need to keep up with the times.  There is absolutely NO requirement for referees to be anonymous.  Only that they're qualified.  And that their impartial.  And that they are known to conduct themselves professionally.  You are GROSSLY under qualified - in all aspects. 

Rosie Poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 11:24:24 PM
It appears that implementing the 555 timer circuit in lieu of the FG isn't as big an obstacle as Rosemary has been making it out to be.

But then...we already  know what kind of trouble she gets into with 555 timer circuits. FTC has reproduced the 555 circuit from the Quantum COP>17 claim... I invite all interested parties to put it together and see what duty cycle it makes at the mosfet's load.

Nobody has to take my word for anything. Just build and test, build and test, see for yourselves if I am wrong.


Now... what are the preferred timings for the Big Show? Right now my 555 Tar Baby is pulsing at about 550 Hz with a duty cycle of around 70 percent "oscs on", and the oscs themselves are at about 3.8 MHz using the 830as.
So if I know the desired pulse rate and duty cycle I can modify the timing elements of the 555 to produce those values, I think. If especially slow rates are needed I will probably gang two 555s or use a 556 in a different mode.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 11:32:35 PM
TK - you need to keep up with the times.  There is absolutely NO requirement for referees to be anonymous.  Only that they're qualified.  And that their impartial.  And that they are known to conduct themselves professionally.  You are GROSSLY under qualified - in all aspects. 

Rosie Poser

From the Wiki:

Quote
Anonymous peer review Anonymous peer review, also called blind review, is a system of prepublication peer review of scientific articles or papers for journals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal) or academic conferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_conference) by reviewers who are known to the journal editor or conference organizer but whose names are not given to the article's author. The reviewers do not know the author's identity, as any identifying information is stripped from the document before review. The system is intended to reduce or eliminate bias, although this has been challenged – for example Eugene Koonin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Koonin), a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Biotechnology_Information), asserts that the system has "well-known ills"[23] and advocates "open peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review)". Others support blind reviewing because no research has suggested that the methodology maybe harmful and the cost of facilitating such reviews is minimal.[24] Some experts proposed blind review procedures for reviewing controversial research topics.[25]
 [edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peer_review&action=edit&section=10)] Open peer review Main article: Open peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review) Open peer review describes a scientific literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literature) concept and process, central to which is the various transparency and disclosure of the identities of those reviewing scientific publications. The concept thus represents a departure from, and an alternative to, the incumbent anonymous peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_peer_review) process, in which non-disclosure of these identities toward the public – and toward the authors of the work under review – is default practice.  The open peer review concept appears to constitute a response to modern criticisms of the incumbent system; therefore, its emergence may be partially attributed to these phenomena.


Idiot. When are you going to test your batteries? I have eliminated your last attempt at delay and objection: the 555 timer circuit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 12:03:38 AM
Picowatt - it seems that you want me to state the obvious. If you expect any co-operation from me related to anything at all then I would require that you prove some level of impartiality - AT LEAST.  Failing which I must assume that you are as thick as a thief with TK.  That you probably instruct him.  Else how do you explain that - 'never mind' 'carry on'.  And that  your agenda - like his - is to disprove our claim based on anything at all.  You have NOT acknowledged that answer to those voltages related to their peak to peak values with an AC coupling.  You simply complained about poor eyesight.  You have DEMANDED answers to your questions from me with the same flaunted lack of respect that our trolls employ.  And you are are now regressing to an overuse of acronyms that are ENTIRELY undefined which is the 'troll' 'fall back' when all else fails.  Therefore, I put it to you that there is real evidence that I may, as with TK and MileHigh - ignore your input as having an 'agenda' that is patently obvious.  Quite apart from which, there is nothing preventing you airing your opinions on TK's own thread.  Move there.  I am more than a little tired of TK's rather rushed and anxious desire to 'test everything' in the hopes that he can thereby obviate any further need for my own test demonstrations.  There is NOTHING that will justify any dependency on anything that TK presents as he's PROVED his partiality in every post that he posts.  And that ENTIRELY disqualifies him from comment.  What do you seriously propose you can do to allow any dependency on his data at all.  He's distortions on just one video alone are enough to satisfy any objective person that he will go to some considerable lengths to infer and imply whatever he chooses.  And it seems that none of you are prepared to acknowledge those rather transparent  ploys of his.

And the topic of this thread has moved with the wind.  But currently the object is to move towards a genuine replication that I understood you were about to do.  And to hold to our rights to demonstrate our claims publicly for the benefit of public interest that requires more efficient energy supplies.  The less obvious sub theme is to show up some rather abusive troll tactics for what they are.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 12:07:14 AM
From the Wiki:


Idiot. When are you going to test your batteries? I have eliminated your last attempt at delay and objection: the 555 timer circuit.

You are the idiot TK.  You referenced BLIND peer review.  There is no obligation for the review process to be BLIND. 

And I am MOST ANXIOUS to do the 555 timer circuit test.  But I will not do it until I have a new thread which I can moderate as agreed by Harti.
What I'm waiting for is to have his further agreement to then allow our NERD circuit to be equally and publicly displayed.  And our own undertakings will present the data considerably more conclusively than your own efforts.  They'd need to be.

Rosie Pose

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 12:16:26 AM
Oh Rosie Posie Punch-a-Nosey...

We are encouraging you to do a battery draw down test.  TK has made suggestions, I have made suggestions, I am pretty sure that Poynt has made suggestions in the past.

If you really wanted to you could 'rally' and put your batteries in a corner and set up the peg board on a table.

Distill all the the information that has been provided to you into a ten-point test plan and share it with us for our feedback.  Within short order I would hope that we could agree with your plan.

The only 'rocket science' is to start with fully-charged batteries that you know are good, then run your setup in negative offset oscillation mode for as long as you have calculated that you need to run it, and then do the dim bulb test.

Time to stop whining and get off your butt and do something real.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 12:27:15 AM
Oh Rosie Posie Punch-a-Nosey...

We are encouraging you to do a battery draw down test.  TK has made suggestions, I have made suggestions, I am pretty sure that Poynt has made suggestions in the past.

If you really wanted to you could 'rally' and put your batteries in a corner and set up the peg board on a table.

Distill all the the information that has been provided to you into a ten-point test plan and share it with us for our feedback.  Within short order I would hope that we could agree with your plan.

The only 'rocket science' is to start with fully-charged batteries that you know are good, then run your setup in negative offset oscillation mode for as long as you have calculated that you need to run it, and then do the dim bulb test.

Time to stop whining and get off your butt and do something real.

MileHigh

My dear MileHigh

I have not spent the most of this year on this forum in order to simply show you and TK and anyone else anything at all.  My intention is to take the tests to a level that they can no longer be refuted.  And the only way to do that is in terms of the tests that I propose with the active engagement of acknowledged experts as the arbiters. 

I would indeed have to be the idiot that you all accuse me of - if I did anything less.  You may recall.  My previous attempt at being 'guided' by open source personalities resulted in Glen's theft of our paper - and his and Harvey's denial of any advantages.  Which has regressed the progress of this technology for a further 2 years.  Fortunately we were able to find even better values.  And we also have anomalies now that more than merit expert investigation.  Which meant that I had to work excessively hard to salvage this from what would have been certain extinction. So.  Don't expect me to be quite that foolhardy as to trust to you members again.  I've been many times bitten.  I've certainly learned better.

Rosie Pose

And picwatt - there's that in your writing style that brings Harvey Gramm very much to mind.  Which is probably why I'm rather inclined to distrust you.  With respect.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 12:42:33 AM
Oh God... So the drama continues...

Forget the "experts" business and the "academics" business Rosie...

A reasonable test can be worked out and some of the people that you are speaking to right here right now are experts.  Has that crossed your mind?

You have been qualified and from inference your team has been qualified and clearly none of you are experts.

You can't call up two professors at a university and expect them to engage with you.  It's not workable and not realistic.  And, again, all of the expertise you need is right here.

This 'fight' in this thread is just 'juice' - something that you feed off of.  It's not about the test, it's about the challenge to come here and defend your proposition every day.  That's what drives you.

Just do a real test.  We all think that we know what the outcome will be, don't we?  Do the test please.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
Oh God... So the drama continues...

Forget the "experts" business and the "academics" business Rosie...

A reasonable test can be worked out and some of the people that you are speaking to right here right now are experts.  Has that crossed your mind?

You have been qualified and from inference your team has been qualified and clearly none of you are experts.

You can't call up two professors at a university and expect them to engage with you.  It's not workable and not realistic.  And, again, all of the expertise you need is right here.

This 'fight' in this thread is just 'juice' - something that you feed off of.  It's not about the test, it's about the challenge to come here and defend your proposition every day.  That's what drives you.

Just to a real test.  We all think that we know what the outcome will be, don't we?  Do the test please.

MileHigh

I have every reason to believe that we most certainly CAN get experts to engage.  But it would need to be a more respectable thread address.  And I've already got more than 2 experts who are looking to the applied protocols.  So don't tell me what I can and can't do.  You have no idea how far I'll work to get this test proved.  And I will NOT EVER do so with any kind of reliance on you, TK, Picowatt, Glen , Powercat, Harvey  - or anyone else.  I wont go there.  It will cost me somewhat to get these tests done.  But I most certainly won't compromise the accreditation again.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 12:53:42 AM
I can read between the lines in your previous posting and what I read is your grand plan will never get off the ground.

I challenge you right here and right now to list between 10 and 15 steps for doing a draw-down - dim bulb test.

C'mon, you must have some test strategy...  Take the first step in sketching out a test plan.  I dare you.

1.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 12:57:05 AM
I can read between the lines in your previous posting and what I read is your grand plan will never get off the ground.

I challenge you right here and right now to list between 10 and 15 steps for doing a draw-down - dim bulb test.

C'mon, you must have some test strategy...  Take the first step in sketching out a test plan.  I dare you.

1.

MileHigh - why should I play my cards?  So that you can do an early 'debunk'?  Like TK's trying to manage?  And why should you care?  Surely you'd be delighted - in the unlikely event that we ever prove anything at all?  I would have thought? 

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 12:57:21 AM
Oh that's rich.

"I'm not going to test anything until I can get acknowledged experts to agree with me. And no one who disagrees with me can be an expert since they clearly don't know what they are doing."

Therefore, Rosemary, you will not be performing any tests. Because like Professor Kahn, they take one look at your "papers" and understand what they are dealing with, and back away as rapidly as possible.

You think I'm humbugger, that picowatt is harvey, and harvey is me. You make the most ridiculous statements that are refuted by a couple of cliks and Wikipedia...over and over and over. You are corrected on irrefutable errors and yet you persist in them for WEEKS and WEEKs, post after post, until even you can no longer defend your position, like with your bogus calculations and your "schematics". Then you just move on, without even any shame or attempts to do better in the future. You express your profound ignorance of just about every topic you comment on, and yet you think your position is unassailable... while everybody is laughing at you, in your face and behind your back. You are pitiful... but I don't pity you. I have watched you do the same thing for years: you sucker people into interacting with you by pretending to be sweet and innocent, then when they begin to see your true colors you turn on them with your vile invective and your hypocritical rantings and threats. The Naked Scientists, Asthweth, Aaron, Harvey, Fuzzy, and more... all these people started out just like picowatt, asking reasonable questions and pointing out inconsistencies and asking you for details and wondering why their exact replications didn't ever work like YOU claim yours does... and yet you NEVER showed any definitive testing in all those years.

And you aren't going to be testing anything now, or any time in the foreseeable future, either, so why don't you stop pretending you are.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 01:01:31 AM
I think the time is nigh for the Big Question: How is Tar Baby different, in any significant way, from Rosemary Ainslie's NERD device described in the papers? Just what factor keeps Tar Baby from being an actual replication of the NERD device?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 01:07:59 AM
I just suggested that we try to agree on a test plan, where you lead since it's your project.  We have been talking about a low-tech brute force style test for the past few days so it should be doable.

Dropping the line "revealing my cards" is the totally wrong attitude.  You should be pleased and open and willing to discuss how to do a test and then take the plunge and do it.

Instead it's the Never Ending Rosemary Drama.  I double-dare you:

1.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 01:08:46 AM
Oh that's rich.

"I'm not going to test anything until I can get acknowledged experts to agree with me. And no one who disagrees with me can be an expert since they clearly don't know what they are doing."

Therefore, Rosemary, you will not be performing any tests. Because like Professor Kahn, they take one look at your "papers" and understand what they are dealing with, and back away as rapidly as possible.

You think I'm humbugger, that picowatt is harvey, and harvey is me. You make the most ridiculous statements that are refuted by a couple of cliks and Wikipedia...over and over and over. You are corrected on irrefutable errors and yet you persist in them for WEEKS and WEEKs, post after post, until even you can no longer defend your position, like with your bogus calculations and your "schematics". Then you just move on, without even any shame or attempts to do better in the future. You express your profound ignorance of just about every topic you comment on, and yet you think your position is unassailable... while everybody is laughing at you, in your face and behind your back. You are pitiful... but I don't pity you. I have watched you do the same thing for years: you sucker people into interacting with you by pretending to be sweet and innocent, then when they begin to see your true colors you turn on them with your vile invective and your hypocritical rantings and threats. The Naked Scientists, Asthweth, Aaron, Harvey, Fuzzy, and more... all these people started out just like picowatt, asking reasonable questions and pointing out inconsistencies and asking you for details and wondering why their exact replications didn't ever work like YOU claim yours does... and yet you NEVER showed any definitive testing in all those years.

And you aren't going to be testing anything now, or any time in the foreseeable future, either, so why don't you stop pretending you are.

TK not only am I going to be testing this but I'll be testing it under the advices and guidance of experts.  And it will be as comprehensive a series of tests as my pocket can afford.  And they will ALL relate to battery draw down tests.  And they'll include a repeat of the COP>17 test. And I'll be in the happy position of being able to refute those sad little disclaimers of yours - and Harvey's and Glen Lettenmaiers.  The real benefit is this.  That way - the work will be deemed to be adequately demonstrated.  And being adequately demonstrated it is also deemed to be published.  And then our academics can officially 'engage' in their own research and - with luck - they'll take this to the levels that are required.  I most certainly am committed to this. 

And until you or anyone else actually disclose your identities I'm disinclined to take anything you say seriously.  Why should I.  You don't even hold yourselves accountable for anything you say or you allege.  Just a whole bunch of anonymous Internet users  - assuming the right to insult a serious researcher and denigrate their work - based on the assumed authority of a 'talking head'.  Please.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 01:13:03 AM
I just suggested that we try to agree on a test plan, where you lead since it's your project.  We have been talking about a low-tech brute force style test for the past few days so it should be doable.

Dropping the line "revealing my cards" is the totally wrong attitude.  You should be pleased and open and willing to discuss how to do a test and then take the plunge and do it.

Instead it's the Never Ending Rosemary Drama.  I double-dare you:

1.
Of course we'll engage openly.  But only when I've got a moderated thread - as Harti's proposed.   God knows it's needed. 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 09, 2012, 01:19:33 AM
Picowatt - it seems that you want me to state the obvious. If you expect any co-operation from me related to anything at all then I would require that you prove some level of impartiality - AT LEAST.  Failing which I must assume that you are as thick as a thief with TK.  That you probably instruct him.  Else how do you explain that - 'never mind' 'carry on'.  And that  your agenda - like his - is to disprove our claim based on anything at all.  You have NOT acknowledged that answer to those voltages related to their peak to peak values with an AC coupling.  You simply complained about poor eyesight.  You have DEMANDED answers to your questions from me with the same flaunted lack of respect that our trolls employ.  And you are are now regressing to an overuse of acronyms that are ENTIRELY undefined which is the 'troll' 'fall back' when all else fails.  Therefore, I put it to you that there is real evidence that I may, as with TK and MileHigh - ignore your input as having an 'agenda' that is patently obvious.  Quite apart from which, there is nothing preventing you airing your opinions on TK's own thread.  Move there.  I am more than a little tired of TK's rather rushed and anxious desire to 'test everything' in the hopes that he can thereby obviate any further need for my own test demonstrations.  There is NOTHING that will justify any dependency on anything that TK presents as he's PROVED his partiality in every post that he posts.  And that ENTIRELY disqualifies him from comment.  What do you seriously propose you can do to allow any dependency on his data at all.  He's distortions on just one video alone are enough to satisfy any objective person that he will go to some considerable lengths to infer and imply whatever he chooses.  And it seems that none of you are prepared to acknowledge those rather transparent  ploys of his.

And the topic of this thread has moved with the wind.  But currently the object is to move towards a genuine replication that I understood you were about to do.  And to hold to our rights to demonstrate our claims publicly for the benefit of public interest that requires more efficient energy supplies.  The less obvious sub theme is to show up some rather abusive troll tactics for what they are.

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Rosemary,

I believe I have been nothing but impartial.  Most if not all of my posts have been entirely focused on a technical analysis of the data you have presented.  While doing so, I believe I have been polite and courteous to all.

If by "impartiality" you mean I am to join with you in the personal battles fought in this and other threads and exchange abusive comments at other posters, well, I have no interest in that.

"Thick as a thief with TK", I do not even know how to comment on that.  Again, if I am to join in with some verbally abusive battle with you or other posters, I am not interested.  Do I agree with TK on everythng?  No.  But take that green wire/inductance video as an example.  You immediately discredited it as fraud or what not, and those of us that understood the demonstration thought it was an excellent video.  Last night I asked TK a question, and within an hour he performed a test to provide an answer.  I greatly appreciated his efforts and his time to document that test. 

When everyone isn't passing rude comments back and forth, I enjoy reading what many posters have to say on this and other threads.  Does treating others with appreciation and courtesy make me "thick as a thief" with someone?

I fully acknowledged and indeed explained what you are calling "peak to peak values" and AC coupling.  The numbers next to the letters "ofs" at the bottom of the scope are merely the amount of offset applied to the channel to position a trace vertically with reference to the center line of the screen.  They have nothing to do with "peak to peak" values or "AC coupling".  Please reread my posts regarding them.

I complained about poor eyesight because the small division dots on the LeCroy are hard to read.  The LeCroy has cursors for making the measurements we must do "the old fashioned way" from the screen shots, which is count major and minor divisions off the screen.   On a scope with cursors available, the division marking is often less distinct as it is expected we will be using the available cursors and not counting small dots on the screen face.  Anyone who uses 'scopes routinely likely fully understood my comments.

I asked three questions once, and repeated them after a page or two of you and TK and MH bashing each other back and forth.  I thought we could stay above that noise and discuss your circuit.  Your response to my second request for answers was much more rude, I felt, than my second request for a reponse.  I have since learned to field questions to you and if you chose to not answer, so be it.  But if we cannot discuss technical issues with you, then do not be surprised if the discussions occur between those that do have a technical background.  All of my discussions, questions, and concerns will be but a small segment of those that would be fielded during any peer review.

It is only an overuse of acronyms to those that don't know what they mean.  I was responding to comments from TK and .99, and knew full well I could use very standard acronyms well accepted and fully defined in the field of electronics.  When addressing you, I do not use them as I know you do not know what they mean.  But in the quick response to TK and .99, Ibias, Vgs, Vds and the like have very specific meaning and I did not for a minute believe they would be unfamiliar with such standard "terminology".  You asked .99 what Vgs was, Vgs is a whole lot easier for us "electronic types" to say than "the voltage between the gate and source".  Similarly, Ibias is "bias current" and Vds is "the source to drain voltgae".  Data sheets are full of such acronyms that we in the field must be familiar with.  If it were important to you to know what the acronyms I used were, I would gladly explain them if asked.  It is not some kind of secret code between co-conspirators.  And now you say I am a "troll" because I speak using accepted electronic acronyms.

Again, if the rules of this thread are that I join in with abusive attacks on other posters, I am not interested.  I do not know what your battle is with TK, MH, .99, etc and I really don't care or want to know.  All of it is just noise that buries the topic and any hopes of advancing any technology.  You will have to fight your own battles.  I have attepted to maintain a professional and courteous attitude in all my posts, and refuse to stoop to any abusive talk or loose accusations.

I have an open mind and was willing to accept the very small chance that there might indeed be something of interest going on with your circuit.  Prior to a replication, I felt mining the available data to distill the effect to its essence and then looking for anomalous action in the replication a logical sequence.  Apparently, the data is not open to discussion.

So that is enough "off topic" talk for me,  I truly do have lots to do.

Best regards to you and all,

PW



   



   


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Rosemary, we all know what happens when YOU moderate a thread. There is rampant censorship, editing of old posts to change their meanings, blocking of skeptical dialogue, inexperienced builders making lots of mistakes and wasting time, and eventually you have to give up, either because you yourself get banned or because under YOUR "moderation" everybody eventually goes away to more interesting and freer threads.

You aren't going to test anything properly, and that's not a biased guess: it's a considered judgement based on your long  history of prior non-performance, as well as your continuing ignorance of basic bench procedures.

Meanwhile, Tar Baby is sitting right behind me, making Q2 oscillations that are INDISTINGUISHABLE from yours other than the base frequency, using a negative going gate drive pulse from a 555 timer, no FG involved, heating a load with 320 mA current shown on the inline ammeter, and the load (250 mL mineral oil with the load resistor immersed in it) is at 125 degrees F and may still be climbing.
Oh... and of course I'm using IRF830a mosfets since I only have 4 of the Magic Mosfets and I plan on planting them in the backyard to see if I can grow a mosfet tree.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 01:28:15 AM
Rosemary, we all know what happens when YOU moderate a thread. There is rampant censorship, editing of old posts to change their meanings, blocking of skeptical dialogue, inexperienced builders making lots of mistakes and wasting time, and eventually you have to give up, either because you yourself get banned or because under YOUR "moderation" everybody eventually goes away to more interesting and freer threads.

You aren't going to test anything properly, and that's not a biased guess: it's a considered judgement based on your long  history of prior non-performance, as well as your continuing ignorance of basic bench procedures.

You and MileHigh have a compulsive need to prophesy.  I'm not interested in your prophesies.  As far as I know there has never been a time when a thread was entirely dedicated to the results of a test and the protocols applied to that test.  That is hardly looking for skilled or judicial moderation.  It is simply the hope to establish some kind of blue print where claims can be evaluated at all.  There would be nothing to stop you running your own commentary - on your own thread - or anyone else doing so.  What I'm hoping is that we can limit the engagement to myself - Stefan, Poynty and some esteemed and revered - and hopefully some of my collaborators.  That way open source is the true beneficiary.  And it's best enabled through a forum.

And then too, the first time ever - we will be able to defend our work in line with some well exposed experimental evidence.  If there are any concerns related to the tests or to the protocols then I'm reasonably sure that Harti will advise us.

Again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 01:31:12 AM
He won't give you a moderated thread, you are skating on thin ice.  You will simply delete all posts that you don't like or ban people that you don't like.

I am going to give you the tough truth that you have heard before.  In watching your postings since Picowatt arrived on the scene you have made a few doozie postings that reveal all about with you respect to electronics Rosemary.  There were a few real baddies in the mix so now Picowatt knows that you are totally clueless with respect to electronics.  You might try and you can string a few sentences together and drop a few buzzwords, but there is a kind of Turing test with respect to electronics.  You may have carried the illusion for half a dozen postings but you came through with flying colours and revealed to Picowatt that you are badder than bad.

Why am I telling you this?  The reason that I am telling you this is because that scenario that you just outlined with our favourite anti-bogey men, the experts, and the academics, does not have a hope in hell of ever getting off the ground.  If you can't last more than five technical postings on a free energy board, how do you think you can possibly survive talking about your proposition and a test regimen with an expert or an academic?  The harsh truth Rosemary is that you will never survive a two-hour interview and ongoing engagement with whomever you are trying to solicit to carry the torch for you and have the project sail off into academia.  It's simply not going to happen.  I don't like to be so harsh, but that is the reality.

Your best bet is to work out a test plan with us on this very unmoderated thread and follow through in the execution of the testing.

We may leave a bitter taste in your mouth we are the only thing that you've got.  You simply will not be able to pull off any of your aspirations for your project in the real world.  There is no chance an academic or an expert will take you seriously.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 01:37:34 AM
He won't give you a moderated thread, you are skating on thin ice.  You will simply delete all posts that you don't like or ban people that you don't like.

I am going to give you the tough truth that you have heard before.  In watching your postings since Picowatt arrived on the scene you have made a few doozie postings that reveal all about with you respect to electronics Rosemary.  There were a few real baddies in the mix so now Picowatt knows that you are totally clueless with respect to electronics.  You might try and you can string a few sentences together and drop a few buzzwords, but there is a kind of Turing test with respect to electronics.  You may have carried the illusion for half a dozen postings but you came through with flying colours and revealed to Picowatt that you are badder than bad.

Why am I telling you this?  The reason that I am telling you this is because that scenario that you just outlined with our favourite anti-bogey men, the experts, and the academics, does not have a hope in hell of ever getting off the ground.  If you can't last more than five technical postings on a free energy board, how do you think you can possibly survive talking about your proposition and a test regimen with an expert or an academic?  The harsh truth Rosemary is that you will never survive a two-hour interview and ongoing engagement with whomever you are trying to solicit to carry the torch for you and have the project sail off into academia.  It's simply not going to happen.  I don't like to be so harsh, but that is the reality.

Your best bet is to work out a test plan with us on this very unmoderated thread and follow through in the execution of the testing.

We may leave a bitter taste in your mouth we are the only thing that you've got.  You simply will not be able to pull off any of your aspirations for your project in the real world.  There is no chance an academic or an expert will take you seriously.

MileHigh
What are you saying?  Harti's already offered me moderation of a thread.  But it depends on us doing the 555 test.  Which we're more than ready to do.  But then we want to progress to our own NERD circuit subject to the results of that 555 test.  If indeed too much energy is being put into the circuit through the signal generator then our own NERD circuit is self-evidently a fail at the get go.  But that needs to be evaluated.

And MileHigh - I am NOT an expert at electronics.  But nor need I be.  My own skills relate the thesis in support of those tests.  Frankly all testing bores me to tears.  But I'll gladly do this - as required.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
PW:

I apologize for drawing you into my posting but I had to try a bit of 'shock therapy' with Rosemary and I see that it has not worked.

Rosemary:

Harti is not the right person to give any technical guidance to your testing.  I have said that to you before, surely it must have registered.

So you reject the offer to work with you right here and right now on doing a test to prove or disprove your proposition.

Rosie Nosey, when your proposition sails off into academia and gets studied, how long do you think before we see practical applications?  I want a nice powerful flashlight that lasts 25 years.  What say you???    ;D
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 01:47:36 AM
Rosie:

Quote
I am NOT an expert at electronics.  But nor need I be.

Then how come you won't listen to us when we tell you that the battery current is flowing right through the function generator?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 01:49:06 AM
Rosemary:
Harti is not the right person to give any technical guidance to your testing.  I have said that to you before, surely it must have registered.

So you reject the offer to work with you right here and right now on doing a test to prove or disprove your proposition.

Rosie Nosey, when your proposition sails off into academia and gets studied, how long do you think before we see practical applications.  I want a nice powerful flashlight that lasts 25 years.  What say you???    ;D

There it is again MileHigh - your prophesy.  Let's get prophetic after the tests.  If any claims are wrong - then it will be very quickly exposed.  And if they're right - then I'm reasonably certain that the accreditation will not be as inconclusive as all such claims have been as they relate to these forums.  And then - who knows?  Maybe Over Unity will become a buzz word even amongst our academics.  That would be SO nice.

Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 01:50:37 AM
Rosie:

Then how come you won't listen to us when we tell you that the battery current is flowing right through the function generator?

Because I know enough about physics to know that it can't be.  You electronic guys do NOT have a monopoly on scientific commentary.

R
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 02:00:49 AM
Quote
Because I know enough about physics to know that it can't be.  You electronic guys do NOT have a monopoly on scientific commentary.

R

That's pathetic and that's why things around here can get abusive.  What a jackass statement.  Ironically enough, physics does encompass electronics so if you actually did know enough about physics you would have understood and agreed.

You "know that it can't be."  I think that over the past two days there have been about half a dozen references that it is.

What just transpired above Rosemary is solid evidence that you will not last two hours, perhaps not even 15 minutes, with an academic or an expert that you want to solicit to help you get the throbbing inductor project to "move forward."

We are all that you've got.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 02:17:52 AM
That's pathetic and that's why things around here can get abusive.  What a jackass statement.  Ironically enough, physics does encompass electronics so if you actually did know enough about physics you would have understood and agreed.

You "know that it can't be."  I think that over the past two days there have been about half a dozen references that it is.

What just transpired above Rosemary is solid evidence that you will not last two hours, perhaps not even 15 minutes, with an academic or an expert that you want to solicit to help you get the throbbing inductor project to "move forward."

We are all that you've got.

My dear MileHigh
We are claiming experimental evidence based on anomalies that were predicted in terms of a thesis.  There is no thesis and within your world of electronic engineers no-one who would have come up with the prediction in the first instance.  So don't tell me that a theoretician's contributions don't count.  Then - you claim that no academic will even talk to me.  You are really profoundly mistaken.  And none of them have the rather exalted sense of self-importance that you seem to think would disqualify me in even conversing with them.  I have engaged in long, long discussions - with many of them.  Not the majority.  The majority are satisfied that I'm dealing in a pathological science.  But - surprisingly - the most amenable are also HIGHLY respected. 

The parade of contempt that you and TK seem to think is appropriate - is actually not appropriate anywhere.  I have not enjoyed this time on these forums.  And nor is it likely that even a new thread will be without its drama.  I'm hoping that most of the posts there will be simply the daily posting of results - schematics - and links to various videos.  I can't see more required - short of some analysis related to those questions that are begged from our results.  But it's also something that I've endured because I know of no other way to get this to the public short of publishing.  And notwithstanding two undertakings by two separate journals - this is still being delayed.  Here's a way of circumventing the need.  And getting this to the public is certainly a good thing.  Because if we don't then the public won't even know if there are viable altenatives to the energy supplies that we currently use.  Then my personal reputation is neither here nor there.  Unlike my collaborators I do not earn a living from science.  But what I hope to do is progress this - as best I can - and then let the experts take over.   I know that I would then have done all that's needed - in our little circuit - to keep the knowledge free from patents and ownership.  And whoever wants to take the glory or progress it - then well and good.  I've done my bit.  That's all I want.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 02:42:38 AM
All I want is to know just how the NERD device described in the papers is different from Tar Baby. Or, if you'd rather, how is Tar Baby different from the NERD device?

I stuck the 4 good PG50s in the Q2 positions and looked at the oscillations made by using the 555 timer instead of the FG. Negative going gate pulse, the whole thing. The top trace is the output from the 555 timer pin 3 to the circuit, the bottom trace is the mosfet common drain trace. Zeros are indicated by little dots on the right, in the usual place. Top trace is at 5 volts/division, bottom trace is at 20 v/div, timebase is at 0.5 millisec / div.
THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED AT ALL, just the 555 timer, and the very simplest possible version of the astable oscillator mode of the 555 too. One resistor, one capacitor, one potentiometer, and the 555, plus a tiny heatsink. That's all.....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 02:47:32 AM
You are stubborn and if you were real you would have asked us to help you understand how current can pass through the function generator.

If you have a battery and a resistor and a function generator you could actually test it for yourself.  You would be able to see the current flowing on the multimeter display with your own eyes.

I have never seen anyone so pigheaded as you.  You demonstrate willful ignorance like TK has stated.  You make decisions about electronics that are wrong and will not let anybody convince you otherwise, yet you admit that you know next to nothing about electronics.

The fact of the matter is that there is a trail of crumbs running between you being wrong about the function generator and you being wrong about your "COP infinity" claim.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 02:57:45 AM
A 60 amp-hour battery, fully charged, will take how long, running a constant 200 mA current drain, to go below its nominal voltage on an open circuit test?

Something in the neighborhood of 300 hours, I think. So you could run 5 hours a day, three days a week --  like a college student's laboratory schedule-- for 20 weeks, which is just about a semester -- on a single charge, and you'd still see the nominal voltage until near the very end.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Rosemary said,
Quote
Because I know enough about physics to know that it can't be.  You electronic guys do NOT have a monopoly on scientific commentary.

What "can't be" according to Rosemary is current flowing through the function generator.

That's pathetic and that's why things around here can get abusive.  What a jackass statement.  Ironically enough, physics does encompass electronics so if you actually did know enough about physics you would have understood and agreed.

You "know that it can't be."  I think that over the past two days there have been about half a dozen references that it is.

What just transpired above Rosemary is solid evidence that you will not last two hours, perhaps not even 15 minutes, with an academic or an expert that you want to solicit to help you get the throbbing inductor project to "move forward."

We are all that you've got.

It won't do any good, because Agilent aren't "academics" or something.... but here it is AGAIN: the pdf that describes offset usage, the FG in series with a power supply, and other important things that Rosemary denies are true. Odd that a little old lady internet poster knows more about these things than the largest manufacturer of precision bench test equipment in the world. Geniuses do turn up in the least likely places... but most of them manage a college education, at least.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 03:15:16 AM
Quick, Rosemary... fill up another couple of pages with useless verbiage and nonsense, so people will forget about  my Tar Baby scopeshot, my 555 timer, and my Big Question:

HOW IS TAR BABY DIFFERENT FROM YOUR DEVICE DESCRIBED IN THE PAPERS?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 09, 2012, 04:49:51 AM
I think the time is nigh for the Big Question: How is Tar Baby different, in any significant way, from Rosemary Ainslie's NERD device described in the papers? Just what factor keeps Tar Baby from being an actual replication of the NERD device?

One thing comes to mind;

Have you shown a negative VI product on the scope as shown in their scope shots? I might have missed it, let me know.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 05:19:06 AM
TK:

Quote
All I want is to know just how the NERD device described in the papers is different from Tar Baby. Or, if you'd rather, how is Tar Baby different from the NERD device?

I finally looked at your recent clips and it looks to me like the Tar Baby is essentially the same as the NERD device.  It may take some delicate tweaking to show a negative VI product like Poynt mentioned but in theory it may be doable.

Tar Baby is functionally equivalent to the NERD device as shown by your waveforms.  Have fun testing but I don't think any Tar Baby spaghetti is going to stick to Rosemary.  The Teflon Tachyon Queen?

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 05:47:37 AM
One thing comes to mind;

Have you shown a negative VI product on the scope as shown in their scope shots? I might have missed it, let me know.

Is that a trick question? No, not yet... I don't have a DSO here in the deepbunker, as you know, and my access to the borrowed one is limited--or was-- by how much heat I can stand in my un-airconditioned vehicle in the south Texas spring sunshine. But that's all better now I think and I might be able to do some digiscopy tomorrow or later in the week. I think that Tek can do live integration. I also still have the Clarke-Hess in the back of the car, but there may be bandwidth issues there.

But I can imagine what will happen. When I deskew the probes and do all the rest of the setup necessary to get good input data, the effect won't be found, just as when I first built the circuit with a tight layout and short wires and it didn't oscillate much. And then when I sloppify things and DO get a negative going integral like I did with Steorn's Orbo.... I'll be accused of fakery.

Why do you ask? Do you think there's much difference? How could there be, with the same mosfets, the same other stuff, and the same everything else?

I already know that my batteries are depleting from heating my load during the oscillation phase. If you can tell me how to stop that part, I'll make any change you care to suggest.

ETA: Shades of Mylow. Rosemary hasn't "shown" a negative VI product, she's shown a data box with some numbers in it. The numbers reflect garbage input data, therefore they aren't a VI product at all, at least not one that is properly time-synchronized.  When you show a negative VI product in your sims, you know why it's happening, I hope, just as I knew when I showed the live, negative-going energy integral of Orbette's input power on the LeCroy 104 toy oscilloscope.

ETA 2: perhaps there is some weird AC power sloshing around in the wrong direction superposed on top of the main DC pathway through the load, and this is what is showing up as a negative value. But I've been simply looking at the NERD's scope parameters, and when I see a positive mean for one trace, a positive mean for another trace, and a negative mean for the product... I know right away that there is an error in how the scope is computing the product. But now that I'm using the 555 timer I no longer understand the full pathways that MH made clear in his diagrams using the FG.

Besides.... instead of just computing VxI.... don't we really need to be computing  |V| x |I| x cos(Phase( V-I)) to get the power in an AC signal ? In other words, tiny delays in one trace over the other caused by lead length or the circuit itself can cause power calculations to go awry if one doesn't distinguish between real and apparent power.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 09, 2012, 05:55:42 AM
Howdy members and guests,

This "quote" below is almost visionary and and some people may not always agree with Mile High, but when it needs to be said simply clear his grounded points are sometimes very meaningful.  :)

He won't give you a moderated thread, you are skating on thin ice.  You will simply delete all posts that you don't like or ban people that you don't like.

I am going to give you the tough truth that you have heard before.  In watching your postings since Picowatt arrived on the scene you have made a few doozie postings that reveal all about with you respect to electronics Rosemary.  There were a few real baddies in the mix so now Picowatt knows that you are totally clueless with respect to electronics.  You might try and you can string a few sentences together and drop a few buzzwords, but there is a kind of Turing test with respect to electronics.  You may have carried the illusion for half a dozen postings but you came through with flying colours and revealed to Picowatt that you are badder than bad.

Why am I telling you this?  The reason that I am telling you this is because that scenario that you just outlined with our favourite anti-bogey men, the experts, and the academics, does not have a hope in hell of ever getting off the ground.  If you can't last more than five technical postings on a free energy board, how do you think you can possibly survive talking about your proposition and a test regimen with an expert or an academic?  The harsh truth Rosemary is that you will never survive a two-hour interview and ongoing engagement with whomever you are trying to solicit to carry the torch for you and have the project sail off into academia.  It's simply not going to happen.  I don't like to be so harsh, but that is the reality.

Your best bet is to work out a test plan with us on this very unmoderated thread and follow through in the execution of the testing.

We may leave a bitter taste in your mouth we are the only thing that you've got.  You simply will not be able to pull off any of your aspirations for your project in the real world.  There is no chance an academic or an expert will take you seriously.

MileHigh

Almost every knowledgeable electronic experimentalist here at OverUnity at one time has dipped into the HOLLOW walls of a Rosemary Ainslie thread, each always ending in the same fate as the "first" and the "last" member, from friend to foe, well wishes to hate speech, educated to stupid ..... Rosemary's right everyone else is wrong. This is and has been the continued pattern or mode of operation ( MO ) of Rosemary over the years and not one known or her make believe experts or academics quoted by Rosemary has ever shown up or commented on her device(s) or performance in any forum on the internet.

The idea that a person cannot go to a internet search engine like "google" or "bing" and type in a name of something like a person and get information on that person to Rosemary is beyond her ability it seems. Those individuals or organizations receiving documents or Rosemary's so called "papers" to a journal or magazine for possible peer review and publication are through a blind review process, which means all authors names are removed and vetted using anonymous reviewers, a team of experts maybe engineers and academics are used. There are many of these organizations that if any authors find out a name of a anonymous reviewer or a individual that is assigned the review process and contacts them directly the document can be and normally is thrown out .... they contact you first only if needed.  :-X

The idea Rosemary's totally combined work in any part is so hidden and hard to find on the internet is laughable as anyone whom has looked has gotten an "EYE" full .... and it isn't pretty, any academic or engineer would run to the hills for cover and she would never be contacted by them ever.

The patients that some members have is exceptional for the abuse they have been through, Poynt99 with 2090 posts and TinselKoala with 2451 posts not just here in Rosemary's threads but in numerous other topics actually helping others willing to hear them. Then there's Rosemary with her 3,060 posts of self bloviating some unproven "Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing" standard model "THESIS", tied from the hip to some device(s) with wild claims of the same unproven nature, plus we are to believe and except it as "GOD's" word of truth from Rosemary's own testing and evaluation of the experimental device(s) she personally invented ( she can't even read a schematic or solder a joint together ).  ???

I say Rosemary get a grip on the situation, get ready for the fall of your life, the hole you have been digging so hard and so deep for these years it's must be getting mighty hot way way down there, it's also getting very dark and the next shovel you take may have that famed grim reaper under it, so be careful on where you stab that sharp shovel of yours in .... the odds are not in your favor.  :o

Cheers
FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 09:08:21 AM
Guys - what is surprising about that post of Glen Lettenmaier is not so much the uncharacteristic 'flow' of his prose - but the entire lack of his signature cadences.  'Whom' is spelled correctly although still misapplied.  No 'to's' meaning 'too'.  No obviously ungrammatical sentence structuring.  No tantrums.  No colour.  No reference to vast reams of links that are entirely inappropriate.  No direct reference to my own quotes (sadly).  And no real misapplication of anything at all.  Thank you God.  If his actual signature should really read HG as FTC - then it's also something we'll all gladly overlook.  Just for the sheer pleasure of pretending that we're talking to an adult. To avoid his need to get my response 'explained' I'll use words of 'short syllable'.

Regarding this however...
Almost every knowledgeable electronic experimentalist here at OverUnity at one time has dipped into the HOLLOW walls of a Rosemary Ainslie thread, each always ending in the same fate as the "first" and the "last" member, from friend to foe, well wishes to hate speech, educated to stupid ..... Rosemary's right everyone else is wrong. This is and has been the continued pattern or mode of operation ( MO ) of Rosemary over the years and not one known or her make believe experts or academics quoted by Rosemary has ever shown up or commented on her device(s) or performance in any forum on the internet.
Not actually. Not even close.  And 'HOLLOW walls' of my threads is not the best analogy.  But one gets the drift.  And it's not correct to refer to refer to our members as 'hate speech'.  Probably means 'hate speakers'.  And it's not politic to tell those members that they're 'stupid'.  Nor is it necessary.  It's self-evident.

The patients that some members have is exceptional for the abuse they have been through, Poynt99 with 2090 posts and TinselKoala with 2451 posts not just here in Rosemary's threads but in numerous other topics actually helping others willing to hear them. Then there's Rosemary with her 3,060 posts of self bloviating some unproven "Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing" standard model "THESIS", tied from the hip to some device(s) with wild claims of the same unproven nature, plus we are to believe and except it as "GOD's" word of truth from Rosemary's own testing and evaluation of the experimental device(s) she personally invented ( she can't even read a schematic or solder a joint together ).
Someone may want to inform this writer that 'self bloviating' doesn't actually mean anything at all.  And 'patients' are those people who are sick.  Unless he's trying to imply that members are  - by definition - ill?  Which may indeed be true.  And I can most certainly apply a solder iron.  I've proved this. Do let him know.  But 'Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing' is DELIGHTFUL.  Couldn't have hoped for better.

I say Rosemary get a grip on the situation, get ready for the fall of your life, the hole you have been digging so hard and so deep for these years it's must be getting mighty hot way way down there, it's also getting very dark and the next shovel you take may have that famed grim reaper under it, so be careful on where you stab that sharp shovel of yours in .... the odds are not in your favor.  :o
LOL.  Now it seems that he's a statistician?  'Odds out of favour'?  And he's mixing his metaphors - rather too freely.  Explain to him that if I'm 'digging a hole' then I'm presumably 'in' that hole - else how would I reach 'ground' - metaphorically speaking.  Which means that I would not have that 'far' to fall.  And the 'grim reaper' is not actually located in 'dark holes'.  He only operates 'above ground' - else how could he reap anything at all?  But there's 'a definite and welcome reach for some intriguing prose.

Anyway - far be it from me to discourage this effort.  I've always been something of a scholar of the written word.  And it would be very counterproductive to that interest to discourage these efforts.  So.  On the whole - perhaps someone can recommend FTC AKA Glen Lettenmaier that this gossipy little post is a great improvement and delightfully 'readable'.  Keep up the good work.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 09:22:01 AM
Well guys - that's it.  A mere 33 posts yesterday - and all answered.  Not bad going for the 'frail and elderly' - all things considered.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on April 09, 2012, 12:55:20 PM
I think this thread is going nowhere until Rosemary will do some new measurements without
the function generator and post new measurements results and a video showing
her new setup with the 555 timer...


So as I am getting too many private complains about her spamming now this thread,
I am closing this thread now.

Rosemary, when you will have a new experiment with the 555 timer , the battery tests and a new
video and measurement results , just contact me privately and then I can
open up the thread again. Until then , just work on your setup and make new videos
and document it only with the 555 timer and forget the function generator whiich puts energy
into the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I am not opening this thread again because of the legal threat I received of
her lawyer, but maybe there will be coming some new evidence from these tests.

As I don´t like to be threaten by legal action I might pull the plug again, if this
thread goes nowhere again and close it again and make a backup as PDF and
post it in the Download archive and remove it from the forum completely.

Battery drawdown test data is where ? I cannot find it in the 30 pages since this thread was reopened. Did I miss it ?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 01:18:45 PM
It's in my video called "The Dim Bulb Test", where I compare the batteries that ran Tar Baby for several hours, against an equally charged, but unused one.

Oh.... you mean "Where's the battery drawdown test from Rosemary Ainslie, testing her NERD device".  Someone is preventing her from testing, and she has NO SAY in the matter, according to her. She has claimed that it's me doing it, but lately she's blaming it on our good host, which I can't understand at all. He's providing her with a platform for discussion and testing and scientific dialog, and all she seems able to do is play "grammar editor" and insult people for no reason. My NERD Tesla test preventer doesn't have that frequency band enabled, so I know I'm not responsible for her inability to address the real issues...

Meanwhile... Testing Kontinues.... with ALL data published in an undisclosed public location hidden in plain view. Just not data from NERDs.

And somehow.... in all that yammering about "answering all".... she managed not to answer anything at all. Particularly the question of just how Tar Baby is different from the NERD device described in the papers. How is it different? Why are my batteries running down, but hers..... well we really still don't know what hers are doing, do we.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 05:15:08 PM
Guys,

Now that I've got my thread back - partially - I've also got the time to comment on previous posts in better detail.  This one is intriguing. Lest anyone's inclined to take it seriously - a transcript follows.

.99: In the video I realize that I'm oscillating the Q1 mosfet because I've got the 555 pin 3 going to the FG POSITIVE location on the circuit, but now I've fixed that, simply by routing the Pin 3 to the FG NEGATIVE location on the circuit (duh). Using a variable power supply at 10 volts input to the 555 circuit, I have perfectly stable oscillations on the Q2 mosfet drains (and everywhere else of course) and a reading on the inline meter of about 320 mA..... and the load is warming nicely. (9 volts from the 9v battery wasn't quite enough to get stable in the q2 osc mode.) I found that the 555 gets hot and glitchy so I put a heat sink on it and now it is perfectly stable, has been running the Tar Baby and heating the load with Q2 oscs only for an hour or so, load is up to 104 F.

Here's how I read this paragraph.

"I got the oscillations even though I put the 555 pin 3 at the FG positive.  But I've fixed that.  I changed to a variable power supply and I also put that 555 pin 2 to the FG negative.  And now.  Surprisingly all is STILL oscillating as it should be.  Everywhere.  And off my little inline ammeter I can show a current drawn down at 320 mA... Although my little inline ammeter can't read amperage at these frequencies.  And the load is warming up nicely - but that 'warm up' is ONLY due to the 'tuning prior to the oscillations.  It has nothing to do with the oscillations themselves - which are essentially valueless.  I've already explained this.  In my previous video related to this.  And nor am I about to tell you the actual voltage across the batteries - because then I'd have to admit that I'm using batteries.  And worse still - you'll be able to calculate how much energy is being dissipated at that load.  Or you might.  God forbid that anything become that relevant.  So.  For now.  Pro temp.  Assume that it is NOT whatever is shown.  And while I'm at it - DID I MENTION THAT THERE ARE PHASE SHIFTS?  If not... then look closely.  8) And I'll not bother to calculate the voltage across the load - but REST ASSURED.  It's sum is NEGATIVE.  I sucked that number out of my thumb after I'd washed my hands.  But before my manicure.  That way you can assume freely.  Like I do.  And I am most earnestly IMPLYING that we're doing a replication of the NERD circuit array and not the TK TAR BABY which stands for 'TERRIBLE KIND OF TRIAL AT REPLICATING - BABY.  And BABY stands for Badly Advised By an Y'idiot."

So indeed - if I do not view TK's videos then I may very well fall 'behind'.  And thankfully TK's work PROGRESSES. And thankfully I took note of his caution.  As for the rest of that post - I think I covered that point where he proposed that he was, in fact an ANONYMOUS BLIND REVIEWER.  Golly.  Thankfully he's basing his review of his own hard work on that Terrible Kind of Trial at Replicating.  BABY.  And being blind he's  under no obligation to refer to facts. 

THANKFULLY.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 09, 2012, 05:17:07 PM
Rosemary,

Do all of your "collaborators" agree with your assertion that no current can flow through a function generator?

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2012, 06:06:24 PM
Rosemary,

Do all of your "collaborators" agree with your assertion that no current can flow through a function generator?

PW

We do not measure an input of  current from the function generator.  On the contrary.  It seems that current is being returned there.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 06:31:38 PM
Try again Rosemary if you are going to play with the so-called "big boys" then you have learn to talk like the big boys.

Your answer is ambiguous and raises more questions than it tries to answer.  We want a coherent and definitive answer from you that makes sense.

Your answer is not not acceptable.  Try again.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 09, 2012, 06:33:22 PM
We do not measure an input of  current from the function generator.  On the contrary.  It seems that current is being returned there.

Rosemary



I assume your distinction between "an input of current from" and "being returned there" is in reference to polarity.  Indeed, a function generator, depending on its connection to a circuit and the settings on its front panel, can "sink" or "source" current, as it is typically referred to.

So, are you saying "yes", current can flow through a function generator but that you are merely making a distinction between the actual polarity of that current flow as it applies to your circuit?

PW



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 07:12:40 PM
She has no idea what she IS talking about. We have all of us read and understood the Agilent document... all of us except You Know Who.

RE the comment in her MISQUOTE of me about "phase shifts"... this has been explained MANY TIMES as an artefact of the oscilloscope and it has also been shown how to prevent it WHEN AN EXTERNAL TRIGGER IS AVAILABLE. Anyone who actually understands these matters knows that I am correct, ONCE AGAIN, about some distortion that RA tries to pin on me.

Rosemary, you have got to stop that crap. If you don't understand what you see, ASK YOUR ACADEMICS to explain it to you; don't just pull something out of left field and call it an "explanation" or a "quotation".

Going back nearly TWO WEEKS....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY)

Function generator polarity and current flow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI)

Dolt.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 07:50:56 PM
Oh, this burns me up. Rosemary, you are a liar of the worst kind. How many husbands have you buried, anyway?

Here is the paragraph that she is revising in her comment below.

I said, directed to .99,
Quote
.99: In the video I realize that I'm oscillating the Q1 mosfet because I've got the 555 pin 3 going to the FG POSITIVE location on the circuit, but now I've fixed that, simply by routing the Pin 3 to the FG NEGATIVE location on the circuit (duh). Using a variable power supply at 10 volts input to the 555 circuit, I have perfectly stable oscillations on the Q2 mosfet drains (and everywhere else of course) and a reading on the inline meter of about 320 mA..... and the load is warming nicely. (9 volts from the 9v battery wasn't quite enough to get stable in the q2 osc mode.) I found that the 555 gets hot and glitchy so I put a heat sink on it and now it is perfectly stable, has been running the Tar Baby and heating the load with Q2 oscs only for an hour or so, load is up to 104 F.


And she says,
Guys,

Now that I've got my thread back - partially - I've also got the time to comment on previous posts in better detail.  This one is intriguing. Lest anyone's inclined to take it seriously - a transcript follows.


Transcript. Look up the definition of a transcript. The ABOVE is a transcript. The BELOW is a lying distortion.

Quote

Here's how I read this paragraph.

"I got the oscillations even though I put the 555 pin 3 at the FG positive.  But I've fixed that.  I changed to a variable power supply and I also put that 555 pin 2 to the FG negative.  And now.  Surprisingly all is STILL oscillating as it should be.  Everywhere.  And off my little inline ammeter I can show a current drawn down at 320 mA... Although my little inline ammeter can't read amperage at these frequencies.  And the load is warming up nicely - but that 'warm up' is ONLY due to the 'tuning prior to the oscillations.  It has nothing to do with the oscillations themselves - which are essentially valueless.  I've already explained this.  In my previous video related to this.  And nor am I about to tell you the actual voltage across the batteries - because then I'd have to admit that I'm using batteries.  And worse still - you'll be able to calculate how much energy is being dissipated at that load.  Or you might.  God forbid that anything become that relevant.  So.  For now.  Pro temp.  Assume that it is NOT whatever is shown.  And while I'm at it - DID I MENTION THAT THERE ARE PHASE SHIFTS?  If not... then look closely.  8) And I'll not bother to calculate the voltage across the load - but REST ASSURED.  It's sum is NEGATIVE.  I sucked that number out of my thumb after I'd washed my hands.  But before my manicure.  That way you can assume freely.  Like I do.  And I am most earnestly IMPLYING that we're doing a replication of the NERD circuit array and not the TK TAR BABY which stands for 'TERRIBLE KIND OF TRIAL AT REPLICATING - BABY.  And BABY stands for Badly Advised By an Y'idiot."

So indeed - if I do not view TK's videos then I may very well fall 'behind'.  And thankfully TK's work PROGRESSES. And thankfully I took note of his caution.  As for the rest of that post - I think I covered that point where he proposed that he was, in fact an ANONYMOUS BLIND REVIEWER.  Golly.  Thankfully he's basing his review of his own hard work on that Terrible Kind of Trial at Replicating.  BABY.  And being blind he's  under no obligation to refer to facts. 

THANKFULLY.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

You are a lying, evil, mean-spirited old woman, and you aren't very nice at all, and every time you sign your posts with "Kindest Regards", yet your posts are dripping with lies and insults and distortions.... you reveal your underlying hypocrisy and withered spirit.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 08:01:26 PM
In a very mean spirited "reply" to fuzzytomcat, Rosemary Ainslie wrote,
(snip)
Someone may want to inform this writer that 'self bloviating' doesn't actually mean anything at all.  (snip)
Anyway - far be it from me to discourage this effort.  I've always been something of a scholar of the written word.  (snip)
Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie

Googling "bloviating":

Search   About 383,000 results  (0.12 seconds)

Here are a few of the more reliable definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloviate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloviate)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bloviating (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bloviating)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bloviate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bloviate)


I swear, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's not even sportsmanlike. "Self-bloviating" has an obvious, well defined and very appropriately applied meaning.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 08:07:38 PM
I find it particularly insulting that she thinks dirty hands are something to be ashamed of. I wonder how she treats her car mechanics, her elevator repairmen, the technicians that maintain her plumbing, her aircraft, her garden...... All this from the Red Queen, sitting secure in her manicured home in a gated community, having everybody else do her dirty work for her.
Ah... how I long for the French Revolution. Ainslie reminds me a lot of Marie Antoinette.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 08:19:45 PM
And one more before I walk the "other bitch" Maggie.

The inline ammeter that I use here is a 3-dollar special. I am not about to expose my Fluke 83 or my Simpson 464 to this nonsense circuit until I have full understanding of it.

Everyone but RA has noticed that I make a distinction between "precision" and "accuracy", and I generally do not say "the current through the unit is 320 mA" but rather I say "the inline ammeter reads 320 mA".... a very different statement altogether, and those in the know understand the difference.

For the same settings and arrangements and knobs and voltages, the inline ammeter gives consistent readings. This means that it is "precise". It could be telling me the wrong answer, though--- in other words it could be PRECISE without being ACCURATE. Precision is easy. Accuracy is another thing altogether, and it requires making the same measurement BY DIFFERENT METHODS, in other words, "calibration" to standards. I do not pretend, nor ever have pretended, that the DMM is ACCURATE, only that it is relatively precise.

The Ainslie NERD team measurements are precise. That's what DSOs are for. The Ainslie NERD team measurements are not accurate, though, and hooking up two oscilloscopes in strict parallel is NOT "calibration" to standards of accuracy. That's what a brain is for.... and that's what was left out of the Ainslie "experiments".
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 09, 2012, 09:33:28 PM
Howdy members and guests,

Again we have Rosemary totally unaware of the posting or was it a choice Rosemary made on ignoring the posting that's been asked now the third time and posting it's been answered ?

This important "fact" of which schematics were "EVER" used and documented in any testing and evaluation that needs clarification from the "INVENTOR" of the COP>INFINITY device.

The ramifications if this schematic ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) was used and misrepresented as "NOT" being used for testing and evaluation of any high inductive resistor heating loads over 6 amps it wouldn't be professional although at this point does your reputation Rosemary matter it's fairly well been discredited now anyway.

If there is any error it needs to be corrected there cannot be replicators and verifiers assumptions always made because "YOU" Rosemary refuse to answer any questions that may discredit your unproven "Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing" standard model "THESIS" that only you understand, always tied some how to all your unproven COP>INFINITY device(s).

FTC
 :P

Well guys - that's it.  A mere 33 posts yesterday - and all answered.  Not bad going for the 'frail and elderly' - all things considered.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

 :)

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318062/#msg318062        Reply #1911 on: April 07, 2012, 10:45:26 AM

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html) ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ??   

Is that "ONE" question to hard now ....  ???

No more blah, blah, blah ..... I'll keep posting this a thousand times just like you do your THESIS crap until you answer the question !!!

CHEERS,
FTC
  ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 10:39:20 PM
Damn. Not another "official" schematic controversy.

I sure wish Rosemary would just come right out and say, "Schematic X is the right one, Schematic Y was a typo and I'm now correcting it in every copy of the papers posted along with a note of retraction, and Schematic Z, which TK uses, is.... er..... um....... just like mine except for the 555 timer instead of the FG therefore TK is Torquemada."

But we all know that she will just fill another page or two with self-bloviating, and refuse to acknowledge the real issues.

Here, NERDs... I give you this for nothing, because that's exactly what it's worth.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 02:12:46 AM
All:

I think we need a breather and we need to tone down the rhetoric.  Any progress will require compromise on both sides.

Certainly it's fairly easy to identify one problem and it's a problem that has been ongoing from just about the very beginning.  The problem is this willful ignoring of basic technical concepts and facts by Rosemary.

Take the example of the issue of if current can actually flow through the function generator or not.  It's obvious that Rosemary has been ignoring this fact for a long time and she is just pushing on anyways and turning a deaf ear.

Rosemary, this has to stop.  The way to go forward is to learn and understand.

Put it this way:  If you willfully ignore that current can go through the function generator, then how does the current flow?  You talk about your mastery of writing and language, but when it comes to talking about current flow you can't string six words together that make sense.  That is a fact and the way to try to resolve this is to put a sincere effort into trying to learn.  There is no reason that you can't come to understand how the current flows through the function generator and there is no reason that you can't learn how to articulate that properly.

So I propose that whenever we come to one of these impasses that you engage and try to learn and then we move on.  We never hear the words "can you please help me understand this" from you and it's about time you start.

You are dealing with experts and it's about time you acknowledge this.  We all have our limitations, for example I am not an expert in MOSFETs and you can tell by my lack of familiarity with the proper technical terms.  It's been 21 years since I worked on a bench and when I did I worked in digital logic design.  I know that I am slipping, it has been so long.  I can still read a MOSFET spec sheet though and understand it.  I simply don't have any real-word design experience with MOSFETs.  But in other areas I am an expert.  There are clearly some MOSFET experts here, that's for sure.

So no more of this willfully ignoring basic electronics and circuit concepts.  It's completely unacceptable.  Current can flow through the function generator.  All that you have to do is ask questions and try to learn.  You have to read the Agilent white paper and try to understand it.  Ask questions if you don't understand it.

On the other side it's time to stop the gratuitous bashing which tends to come in waves.  Sometimes it's emotionally draining to read.  Most of us are guilty and it can get too nasty.  You have to think MLK.

So that's it.  In my opinion, if this going to go anywhere, then no more willful ignoring and no more gratuitous bashing would be a good start.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 03:14:29 AM
Guys,

Let me start with this post. 
Rosemary,

Do all of your "collaborators" agree with your assertion that no current can flow through a function generator?

PW

This from that excessively impartial of all men who has that much intellectual honesty that he acknowledges that he has incorrectly evaluated as DC a voltage that should have been determined as AC.  And then he proposes, notwithstanding the evidence, that the AC o f s as detailed on the display - references the 'distance' from zero. And when I show him that this is incorrect he acknowledges NOTHING but moves on - with the public inference being that my explanation is to be IGNORED for want of being correct.  And that he - personally - prefers to use his own oscilloscope.  Then he evinces a sense of 'injury'.  'What have I done to deserve that?" he asks? when I point out the obvious lack of integrity at not acknowledging the answer  - and the equally obvious lack of impartiality by so doing?  Let me remind you PicoWatt.  You repeated that question 7 times - I think it was - while I was struggling through a grand total of 42 'flamed' posts in the course of one singe day.  And most of those 42 posts were relying on your authority that the waveform was faulty or that the MOSFET's were blown.  Pages and pages of calumny and slander - based on that SINGLE INCORRECT DEDUCTION.  And  from 'whome' as Glen Lettenmaier refers to it?  From another BLIND REVIEWER?  Which is the misnomer for 'Troll of the worst kind who is pretending to be reasonable?'  And then you undertake to 'stay away' and even manage it - partially.  When - yet again you come in from the dark and somewhat compulsively 'ask another innocent question'.  How many pages do you anticipate of trollmanship will ensue?  And how much 'BLIND REVIEWING AUTHORITY' do you 'pretend' in asking that question?

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 03:36:41 AM
Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

Try again Rosemary if you are going to play with the so-called "big boys" then you have learn to talk like the big boys.

Your answer is ambiguous and raises more questions than it tries to answer.  We want a coherent and definitive answer from you that makes sense.

Your answer is not not acceptable.  Try again.

MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 03:39:29 AM
"What, the people have no bread? Let them eat Cake !"

Off with his head, cried the Red Queen RoseMarie Antoinette.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 03:42:41 AM
Guys,

Let me start with this post. 
This from that excessively impartial of all men who has that much intellectual honesty that he acknowledges that he has incorrectly evaluated as DC a voltage that should have been determined as AC.  And then he proposes, notwithstanding the evidence, that the AC o f s as detailed on the display - references the 'distance' from zero. And when I show him that this is incorrect he acknowledges NOTHING but moves on - with the public inference being that my explanation is to be IGNORED for want of being correct.  And that he - personally - prefers to use his own oscilloscope.  Then he evinces a sense of 'injury'.  'What have I done to deserve that?" he asks? when I point out the obvious lack of integrity at not acknowledging the answer  - and the equally obvious lack of impartiality by so doing?  Let me remind you PicoWatt.  You repeated that question 7 times - I think it was - while I was struggling through a grand total of 42 'flamed' posts in the course of one singe day.  And most of those 42 posts were relying on your authority that the waveform was faulty or that the MOSFET's were blown.  Pages and pages of calumny and slander - based on that SINGLE INCORRECT DEDUCTION.  And  from 'whome' as Glen Lettenmaier refers to it?  From another BLIND REVIEWER?  Which is the misnomer for 'Troll of the worst kind who is pretending to be reasonable?'  And then you undertake to 'stay away' and even manage it - partially.  When - yet again you come in from the dark and somewhat compulsively 'ask another innocent question'.  How many pages do you anticipate of trollmanship will ensue?  And how much 'BLIND REVIEWING AUTHORITY' do you 'pretend' in asking that question?

Rosemary

See, I told you, PW. She knows more about reading oscilloscope boxes than you do, or will ever learn to do. Why, if the man who signs your paycheck ever finds out the true depth of your knowledge about electronic test equipment....

you just might get a raise.


(Don't look, but she's just diverted attention from the seven or eight stupid assertions she made in the last few pages that were IMMEDIATELY and soundly refuted by references, dictionary definitions, and demonstrations. Yet she makes no acknowledgement that she was ONCE AGAIN outrageously WRONG, and moves on to attack viciously the most reasonable  poster left in this thread.)

Meanwhile... Testing Kontinues.

Just not in South Africa.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 03:46:17 AM
Which, in turn is then followed by this post.



I assume your distinction between "an input of current from" and "being returned there" is in reference to polarity.  Indeed, a function generator, depending on its connection to a circuit and the settings on its front panel, can "sink" or "source" current, as it is typically referred to.

So, are you saying "yes", current can flow through a function generator but that you are merely making a distinction between the actual polarity of that current flow as it applies to your circuit?

PW

I have NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.  READ OUR PAPER.  And IF you want me to speak on behalf of my collaborators then I propose that you 'email' your question and I will then circulate it.  I understood that you'd undertaken NOT to post on my thread.  Or was that undertaking simply for 'effect'?  And that - as in all things - none of you assume the need to act according to your 'word'?

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 03:56:53 AM
Yes, PicoWatt...do read the paper, and tell us if you find a coherent answer to your very simple question.

Rosemary's special function generator, the  IsoTech GFG 324 (paper2, page2) ... is unique, being the only one in the whole world, and it has NO current flowing out of it, only current flowing INTO it.

Of course, the INSTEK GFG 8216A, a perfectly ordinary FG with a 50 ohm impedance,  that we see in the demo video,  only _relates_ to her experiment, only the paper actually describes the experiment.

By the way, the local supplier has the INSTEK GFG 8216A in stock, it appears. And they are cheap, only about 220 US Petrodollars. Beware... you can never tell what a crazed koala will do.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 03:59:05 AM
Which in turn is followed by this post.


RE the comment in her MISQUOTE of me about "phase shifts"... this has been explained MANY TIMES as an artefact of the oscilloscope and it has also been shown how to prevent it WHEN AN EXTERNAL TRIGGER IS AVAILABLE. Anyone who actually understands these matters knows that I am correct, ONCE AGAIN, about some distortion that RA tries to pin on me.

Rosemary, you have got to stop that crap. If you don't understand what you see, ASK YOUR ACADEMICS to explain it to you; don't just pull something out of left field and call it an "explanation" or a "quotation".

Going back nearly TWO WEEKS....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY)

Function generator polarity and current flow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI)

Dolt.
At least he signs himself 'DOLT'.  So candid?  Golly?

My dear TinselKoala

The lack of phase shifts evident in your rather skewed displays is ALARMING.  It indicates that your scope is NOT correctly showing the 'required' shifts that would inevitably result.  Unless of course we are now dealing with a new miracle related to the TAR BABY' (Typical Argument wRongly Based About Bug all you 'Idiots').

With the VERY kindest regards TK because you're badly in need of some goodwill.
Rosie Pose 
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 04:04:40 AM
You have shown no phase shifts whatsoever in any of your scopeshots, and I think you wouldn't recognise one if you woke up next to it. Your LeCroy in the video demo isn't "phase shifting", it simply isn't triggering properly.

Crone.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 04:08:39 AM
And then this...
I find it particularly insulting that she thinks dirty hands are something to be ashamed of. I wonder how she treats her car mechanics, her elevator repairmen, the technicians that maintain her plumbing, her aircraft, her garden...... All this from the Red Queen, sitting secure in her manicured home in a gated community, having everybody else do her dirty work for her.
Ah... how I long for the French Revolution. Ainslie reminds me a lot of Marie Antoinette.

in answer to this...
Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH
where every effort is made to advise you all that I'm rich.  I can honestly say that apart from my car I own absolutely NOTHING in this entire world.  And I drive a little YARIS for God's sake.  How more modest can one be? I am NOT rich.  If only.  But I see why he needs to imply this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 04:25:52 AM
And then this...
Oh, this burns me up. Rosemary, you are a liar of the worst kind. How many husbands have you buried, anyway?
How utterly charming?  I was widowed at the age of 26.  At the time my son was 6 weeks old.  I have never remarried.  I worked all my adult life.  And I retired at 50.  Thank you for the sensitivity related to this question.  It shows a knowledge that could only have been shared by your equally charming co-conspirators together with a video that I foolishly offered on the continued and urgent requests of Harvey and Glen .  I was wondering exactly how BIG is a pickle.  I now know.

You are a lying, evil, mean-spirited old woman, and you aren't very nice at all, and every time you sign your posts with "Kindest Regards", yet your posts are dripping with lies and insults and distortions.... you reveal your underlying hypocrisy and withered spirit.
I thank God, on a daily basis - that there is NOTHING about this mission of mine that is 'small'.  And if my spirit is 'withered' as you put it - then it is, nonetheless, equal to the sad attack that some 5 trolls needs must put up to try and fend off the truth of our experimental evidence.  If that is a measure of my 'spirit' as you put it - then I'm not sure that it entirely reflects my chronological age.  But it certainly reflects the limited abilities related to your sad efforts to 'misinform' our public.

Rosie Poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 04:36:08 AM
And then this.  Our TinselKoala seems to see merit in consecutive posting in order to DOMINATE this thread. 
And one more before I walk the "other bitch" Maggie.

The inline ammeter that I use here is a 3-dollar special. I am not about to expose my Fluke 83 or my Simpson 464 to this nonsense circuit until I have full understanding of it.
THEN TK you need to INFORM your viewers that they must IGNORE the value of that ammeter.  For obvious reasons.  For some reason you omitted this.  WHY?
Everyone but RA has noticed that I make a distinction between "precision" and "accuracy",...
WHERE?  There's NO reference to the obvious inaccuracy of that meter's amperage.
and I generally do not say "the current through the unit is 320 mA" but rather I say "the inline ammeter reads 320 mA".... a very different statement altogether, and those in the know understand the difference.
What a load of nonsense.  You RELIED on the misconstruction of your 'inline ammeter' to promote this program of DISINFORMATION
For the same settings and arrangements and knobs and voltages, the inline ammeter gives consistent readings. This means that it is "precise". It could be telling me the wrong answer, though--- in other words it could be PRECISE without being ACCURATE. Precision is easy. Accuracy is another thing altogether, and it requires making the same measurement BY DIFFERENT METHODS, in other words, "calibration" to standards. I do not pretend, nor ever have pretended, that the DMM is ACCURATE, only that it is relatively precise.
I take it that this is an open admission that the PRECISE measure of the amperage is also entirely INACCURATE.  We needed that qualification.  Else everyone watching your video will assume that it's a replication of the NERD circuit.  God forbid.
The Ainslie NERD team measurements are precise. That's what DSOs are for. The Ainslie NERD team measurements are not accurate, though, and hooking up two oscilloscopes in strict parallel is NOT "calibration" to standards of accuracy. That's what a brain is for.... and that's what was left out of the Ainslie "experiments".
Nor was it intended to show " 'calibration' to standards of accuracy".  Are you even aware of this?  Or are you simply hoping that our members and readers don't know the difference?

and again and as ever,
Rosie Pose
[/quote]
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 04:41:40 AM
And then there's THIS.

Damn. Not another "official" schematic controversy.

I sure wish Rosemary would just come right out and say, "Schematic X is the right one, Schematic Y was a typo and I'm now correcting it in every copy of the papers posted along with a note of retraction, and Schematic Z, which TK uses, is.... er..... um....... just like mine except for the 555 timer instead of the FG therefore TK is Torquemada."

But we all know that she will just fill another page or two with self-bloviating, and refuse to acknowledge the real issues.

Here, NERDs... I give you this for nothing, because that's exactly what it's worth.
I'm not sure that I can copy over that new variant of our schematic.  I'll give it a go when I've concluded these post commentaries.  But we use a 4 channel scope meter.  I'm not sure that you've entirely convinced anyone at all - that our probe is misplaced as you're trying SO HARD to IMPLY.

Rosie Poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 05:19:55 AM
Then there's MileHigh's request that the thread needs less rhetoric.  He calls for compromise here...
I think we need a breather and we need to tone down the rhetoric.  Any progress will require compromise on both sides.
And then continues with the description of my input as my 'willful' and 'deliberate' attempts at IGNORING the evidence. Presumably he sees this as a halt on that 'rhetoric'.  And presumably he prefers TK's?  And he decided that the 'proof' is that current 'flows' from the signal generator.  However, IF the applied signal at the signal generator results in a 'flow of current' from that generator - then the signal is NOT a signal.  It is an applied current flow.  It is the INDUCTION resulting from that  applied voltage is certainly able to induce a current flow from the circuit components.  But.  The current flow resulting from that voltage and from the applied signal REMAINS with the function generator and returns to the SOURCE of that function generator.  Unless - as ever - we are not talking physics but talking some kind of 'misconception' that ALL you poor electronic troll geniuses seem to share.  Or - God forbid - need to promote.
And here's more cause to believe MileHigh's call for reason and ration to prevail...
Take the example of the issue of if current can actually flow through the function generator or not.  It's obvious that Rosemary has been ignoring this fact for a long time and she is just pushing on anyways and turning a deaf ear.
INDEED. I'm turning a deaf ear.  It's all that your arguments deserve.  But I'm NOT about to also CLOSE MY MOUTH.
Rosemary, this has to stop.  The way to go forward is to learn and understand.
IF I was to learn and understand anything at all that TK and you and picowatt 'the heavy weight' were to promote  then I'd need to RELEARN physics AWAY from the standard model.  I'm not about to oblige you.
Put it this way:  If you willfully ignore that current can go through the function generator, then how does the current flow?  You talk about your mastery of writing and language, but when it comes to talking about current flow you can't string six words together that make sense.  That is a fact and the way to try to resolve this is to put a sincere effort into trying to learn.  There is no reason that you can't come to understand how the current flows through the function generator and there is no reason that you can't learn how to articulate that properly.
Of COURSE not.  MileHigh.  And there's no reason at all that I shouldn't simply follow your utterly reasonable requirement that I simply STOP promoting our little circuit.  It would suit you SO much better.  I see that now.
added
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 05:20:39 AM
So I propose that whenever we come to one of these impasses that you engage and try to learn and then we move on.  We never hear the words "can you please help me understand this" from you and it's about time you start.
I rely on the teaching of our masters here MileHigh.  Not the teachings of a handful of investors in oil or nuclear technologies.  I suspect their interests are somewhat challenged.
You are dealing with experts and it's about time you acknowledge this.
The first requirement for an EXPERT would be IMPARTIALITY.  You ALL fall on your knees at the get go.
We all have our limitations, for example I am not an expert in MOSFETs and you can tell by my lack of familiarity with the proper technical terms.  It's been 21 years since I worked on a bench and when I did I worked in digital logic design.  I know that I am slipping, it has been so long.  I can still read a MOSFET spec sheet though and understand it.  I simply don't have any real-word design experience with MOSFETs.  But in other areas I am an expert.  There are clearly some MOSFET experts here, that's for sure.
I'm not sure that MOSFET expertise is relevant.  More to the point would be an understanding of their FUNCTION.  And this is CLEARLY lacking.
So no more of this willfully ignoring basic electronics and circuit concepts.  It's completely unacceptable.  Current can flow through the function generator.  All that you have to do is ask questions and try to learn.  You have to read the Agilent white paper and try to understand it.  Ask questions if you don't understand it.
ALL that I actually need to understand is the significance of a negative wattage.  And RIGHT NOW - NO-ONE can explain this.  And RIGHT NOW no-one here has tried.  So don't give me this 'pay attention and ask' nonsense.  It is you and your 'friends' that need to pay attention. 
On the other side it's time to stop the gratuitous bashing which tends to come in waves.  Sometimes it's emotionally draining to read.  Most of us are guilty and it can get too nasty.  You have to think MLK.
I will give as good as I get.  With the added advantage that I don't need to resort to invective.  Because that would be actionable.
So that's it.  In my opinion, if this going to go anywhere, then no more willful ignoring and no more gratuitous bashing would be a good start.
I agree. SO?  Stop your own gratuitous bashing and willful ignorance.
 
 ever,
 Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 05:24:43 AM
You have shown no phase shifts whatsoever in any of your scopeshots, and I think you wouldn't recognise one if you woke up next to it. Your LeCroy in the video demo isn't "phase shifting", it simply isn't triggering properly.

Crone.
Because we did NOT take the voltage across the load element resistor.  OBVIOUSLY.  And for that precise reason.  I would have thought you'd know this?  Aren't you a self-declared EXPERT?

yours ever,
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 05:59:18 AM
Rosemary:

Let's suppose that you have a standard function generator like we have been discussing all along.  You connect your scope up to it and you adjust the function generator to output a square wave where the high output is 10 volts and low output is negative 7 volts.

You then disconnect the scope and connect a 240 ohm resistor between the "positive" center conductor terminal and the "negative" outer conductor terminal of the function generator.

Can you tell us what the voltages and currents are when the function generator is outputting the square wave?  The frequency of the square wave doesn't matter, let's say it's 100 Hz.

If you want to impress us and demonstrate that you understand how the function generator works, then please answer the question and show your work.   You just accused us of not really knowing what we are talking about when it comes to the function generator.

Thanks,

MileHigh

P.S.:  Please, I don't want a single person to help Rosemary answer this question.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 06:06:31 AM
My dear MileHigh

Rosemary:

Let's suppose that you have a standard signal generator like we have been discussing all along.  You connect your scope up to it and you adjust the signal generator to output a square wave where the high output is 10 volts and low output is negative 7 volts.

You then disconnect the scope and connect a 240 ohm resistor between the "positive" center conductor terminal and the "negative" outer conductor terminal of the function generator.

Can you tell us what the voltages and currents are when the function generator is outputting the square wave?  The frequency of the square wave doesn't matter, let's say it's 100 Hz.

If you want to impress us and demonstrate that you understand how the function generator works, then please answer the question and show your work.   You just accused us of not really knowing what we are talking about when it comes to the function generator.

Thanks,

MileHigh

P.S.:  Please, I don't want a single person to help Rosemary answer this question.

When have I tried to advise you that I understand the workings of a function generator?  And why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Here it is again.

Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 06:19:23 AM
Big knowledge, big education, or big experience, or some combination thereof.

There you have your answer so please answer my question.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 06:23:19 AM
Big knowledge, big education, or big experience, or some combination thereof.

There you have your answer so please answer my question.

MileHigh
Then show me the evidence of all that 'BIG'.  Else I'll not play along with you and pretend that you ARE that big.  And I'll not show you the kind of respect that you're looking for by ANSWERING YOU.  In fact.  When I have answers to ALL MY OWN QUESTIONS - I"ll start to answer yours.

Rosie Pose 'eo'
Amended

And lest it fall from focus - or off this page - then here it is again

Then this comes - hot on the tail of that question - but this time from MileHigh

I am now roundly 'advised' that he and Picowatt and TK are the 'big boys'?  Golly.  Does he mean that they're 'big' in the sense that a gramm is roughly equal to the excessive size and weight mass of Jabba the Hut?  Or simply that it's  as big as 1 pickle per 72 inches?  Or one foot per every 72  pickles - jammed into one really big mouth? Or that it's that big that it reaches 1760 yards vertically - give or take a few inches because it's measured a short distance above ground?  Are they big because they can manage pages of utterly undefined acronyms in their efforts to exaggerate what little knowledge they have?  Or are they 'big' in direct proportion to the calumny and spite that they parade in page after page after page of spurious posts and spurious facts and spurious observations and spurious tests - NONE of which are scientific - and ALL of which are intended to discredit our hard work?  Or are they 'big' in the sense that they can discredit what they like when the like because they're well funded?  They 'belong' in whole and in part - in spirit and in truth - to our monopolistic interests?  Or are the simply 'big' in spirit - where they see endless value in the constant barrage of actionable slander - against an excessively elderly woman - who has no defense other than intellect.  Or.  Are they big as the lions in that Roman arena are big when they circle their prey and weigh up their chances for some breakfast? 

Define BIG - MILEHIGH
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 06:34:56 AM
Rosemary:

I'm not going to play a game of chess with you about this.  I will assume that the readers are assuming just like me, that in fact you are unable to answer the question.

If you can't answer the question then we can conclude that you don't understand how the function generator works.  Since you don't understand how the function generator works then you are not able to pass any judgements on whether or not current is flowing through the function generator when your circuit is running in negative offset oscillation mode.

So I can suggest to you that you either answer the question and show your work or you admit to us that you can't answer the question and ask for our help.

The goal would be to get you to understand how current can flow straight through the function generator just like it does in your circuit.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 06:38:54 AM
Rosemary:

I'm not going to play a game of chess with you about this.  I will assume that the readers are assuming just like me, that in fact you are unable to answer the question.

If you can't answer the question then we can conclude that you don't understand how the function generator works.  Since you don't understand how the function generator works then you are not able to pass any judgements on whether or not current is flowing through the function generator when your circuit is running in negative offset oscillation mode.

So I can suggest to you that you either answer the question and show your work or you admit to us that you can't answer the question and ask for our help.

The goal would be to get you to understand how current can flow straight through the function generator just like it does in your circuit.

MileHigh

In which case MileHigh we should be able to prove that experimentally.  I intend to do so. The thing you are trying to imply is that our results are skewed as a result of this.  I KNOW that they are NOT.

Rosie Pose

ADDED
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 08:25:09 AM
Rosemary,

Please do experimentally verify that current can both pass through and/or be provided by a function generator.  You need not take anyone's word for that.  It would take very little time to do the experiments necessary to prove that a function generator can both source and sink current, and that it can also be placed in series with a power supply or battery and allow current to flow through it.  Feel free to ask if you need advisement regarding how to perform these tests.  There is little point in arguing about such well known and easily verified facts regarding a function generator.       


You can also quite easily verify my explanation to you of the "ofs" readings on the LeCroy.  Just turn the LeCroy on, you needn't apply any signal.  Set up the scope to display one or more traces on the screen.  Select a channel and adjust the offset control for that channel.  You will see that channel's horizontal trace move up and down the face of the screen verticaly.  As you do so, the "ofs" numbers will increase positive and negative as you move the trace above or below the screen's horizontal center line.  If you press on the end of the offset control, it will cause that trace to return to the center of the screen and the "ofs" number will as well return to zero.

PW




Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 08:55:36 AM
Rosemary,

Please do experimentally verify that current can both pass through and/or be provided by a function generator.  You need not take anyone's word for that.  It would take very little time to do the experiments necessary to prove that a function generator can both source and sink current, and that it can also be placed in series with a power supply or battery and allow current to flow through it.  Feel free to ask if you need advisement regarding how to perform these tests.  There is little point in arguing about such well known and easily verified facts regarding a function generator. 
I am well aware of the fact that the signal generator can induce a current flow in the circuit.  That was not the issue.  The issue was whether or not it added to or subtracted from the energy at the battery supply.  If it adds any significant amount then that would need to be quantified against our gains.  Since there's no point in speculating on this we intend to test it experimentally.  And I assure you that there are more than enough skilled in the art - to sort out the required test.       

You can also quite easily verify my explanation to you of the "ofs" readings on the LeCroy.  Just turn the LeCroy on, you needn't apply any signal.  Set up the scope to display one or more traces on the screen.  Select a channel and adjust the offset control for that channel.  You will see that channel's horizontal trace move up and down the face of the screen verticaly.  As you do so, the "ofs" numbers will increase positive and negative as you move the trace above or below the screen's horizontal center line.  If you press on the end of the offset control, it will cause that trace to return to the center of the screen and the "ofs" number will as well return to zero.
I was rather hoping for an honest response in my answer to you regarding the ofs on the display.  It seems rather that you've used this as an opportunity to try and advise our readers that I did not know those rather elementary functions on an instrument that I've used continually for some 2 years now.  Do you still doubt that those voltage values represent the peak to peak voltages - on an AC coupled value?  Because that's what you asked.  And that's what I answered. And you most certainly did NOT read their values as AC.  Considering the level of your alleged expertise one would have thought you'd know better. I didn't know the answer.  But I'm not the expert.

And from memory you asked this seven times or thereby with a sense of outrage and censure that I was not 'jumping' sufficiently quickly - to attention.  You said words to the effect 'If you're not going to answer me - then let me know'.  And that was between the 39 posts from your acolytes while they attacked me for an alleged misrepresentation of the voltage value at the gate - as per your advices.  And all of those posts in the space of about 12 hours.  Charming - I'm sure.  Is that how you 'big boys' deal with things?  Pretend to know everything - and compound the pretense by giving unsolicited and inappropriate advice?  Because that way you can also exaggerate my incompetence.  It's very effective PW or whoever you are.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 09:05:46 AM
Rosemary,

I did indeed provide an honest response to your questions regarding the "ofs" numbers on the LeCroy.  As well, I have provided you with the procedure to verify that answer in my last post.  And again, the offset numbers have nothing to do with "AC" or a "peak to peak" value.

PW



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
Rosemary,

I did indeed provide an honest response to your questions regarding the "ofs" numbers on the LeCroy.  As well, I have provided you with the procedure to verify that answer in my last post.  And again, the offst numbers have nothing to do with "AC" or a "peak to peak" value.

PW

I KNOW that the offset has nothing to do with peak to peak.  It has everything to do with that AC coupled value.  And the AC coupled value relates to PEAK TO PEAK.  It is applicable to the gate voltage.  You insisted on reading it as DC.  My advices were that you should be applying AC.  In which case the actual voltage across the gate is LESS THAN the value displayed as DC.  And we never apply any adjustments once the coupling has been chosen.  Therefore there is NO ADJUSTMENT made to the traces anywhere at all that is not determined by the machine.  And it is well able to determine zero.

Isn't the object here to determine the actual voltage across the gate?  Wasn't that the point of your question in the first instance?  Has this NOT been answered to your satisfaction?  Are you still implying that the voltage on the DC Coupled value is correct?  If so - and if you're satisfied that the DC voltage has been misrepresented - then I have run out of answers.  Because that's the best advice that I have been given.  By an IMPARTIAL EXPERT.  It may well be that I have not understood that answer sufficiently.  But overall and what I most certainly have had explained - is that the VALUE IS CORRECT - provided that you take the voltage reading as an AC value and NOT a DC value.  Because that incorporates the offset value.  I'm afraid that's the best I can do.

Again
Rosie Pose

added a 'd' to adjustments
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 09:28:32 AM
I KNOW that the offset has nothing to do with peak to peak.  It has everything to do with that AC coupled value.  And the AC coupled value relates to PEAK TO PEAK.  It is applicable to the gate voltage.  You insisted on reading it as DC.  My advices were that you should be applying AC.  In which case the actual voltage across the gate is LESS THAN the value displayed as DC.  And we never apply any ajustments once the coupling has been chosen.  Therefore there is NO ADJUSTMENT made to the traces anywhere at all that is not determined by the machine.  And it is well able to determine zero.

Isn't the object here to determine the actual voltage across the gate?  Wasn't that the point of your question in the first instance?  Has this NOT been answered to your satisfaction?  Are you still implying that the voltage on the DC Coupled value is correct?  If so - and if you're satisfied that the DC voltage has been misrepresented - then I have run out of answers.  Because that's the best advice that I have been given.  By an IMPARTIAL EXPERT.  It may well be that I have not understood that answer sufficiently.  But overall and what I most certainly have had explained - is that the VALUE IS CORRECT - provided that you take the voltage reading as an AC value and NOT a DC value.  Because that incorporates the offset value.  I'm afraid that's the best I can do.

Again
Rosie Pose


Rosemary,

Referring to FIG 3 of your first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the output of the function generator is a positive voltage, what is the voltage indicated on channel 3 by the scope capture?

I see it at 1.25 major divisions above the zero volt reference, which is the little line with the number 3 above it to the left of the screen.  Channel 3 is set to indicate 10volts per division.  1.25 divisions times 10volts represents 12.5volts.  That is telling me that during the portion of the cycle wherein the generator swings positive, it is attaining a positive voltage of 12.5 volts.

What voltage do you read that point in the cycle as being?

PW   



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 09:39:33 AM

Rosemary,

Referring to FIG 3 of your first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the output of the function generator is a positive voltage, what is the voltage indicated on channel 3 by the scope capture?

I see it at 1.25 major divisions above the zero volt reference, which is the little line with the number 3 above it to the left of the screen.  Channel 3 is set to indicate 10volts per division.  1.25 divisions times 10volts represents 12.5volts.  That is telling me that during the portion of the cycle wherein the generator swings positive, it is attainging a positive voltage of 12.5 volts.

What voltage do you read that point in the cycle as being?

PW

In the first instance that display was to determine the applied frequency.  Not the voltage.  In the second instance - the DC voltage is NOT applicable.  Therefore - the voltage across the gate should be read as an AC voltage.  That's the advices that I was given.  Left to my own devices then I would say that the zero crossing line is midway between the peaks of the voltages displayed and the voltage should be read accordingly.  Therefore the value is something less than 6 volts.  And this adjustment because the signal from the generator is NOT DC but AC. 

Now - PicoWatt - let me know something from you.  I'd like to see it again - in black and white.  You have advised us that actually the offset as displayed needs to be applied to ALL values.  Let me know what you mean?  Are you suggesting that we must adjust the battery voltage from the mean average voltage displayed as DC to that -170 odd volts shown in the ofs display number?  And equally - are we to determine the voltage across the shunt to be offset by some 4 volts positive as displayed in that offset box?  Let me know.  Then I'll take your argument straight to my expert for comment.  It will be most entertaining.

Again,
Rosemary

I had to scroll back 8 pages to find this file reference.  That's how long it's been that this has been discussed.  Which says much about the value of discussion on this matter.  It's circular and going nowhere.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 09:43:54 AM
You've exceeded her math capability with that question.
That's why her answer is word salad and refers to her "expert". She cannot read an oscilloscope unless it has numbers in boxes. I know this is hard for you to believe, but by now you must realize it is true. Else, why can't she just come out and say, 1 and a quarter divisions, at 10 volts per division, equals 12.5 volts. It's because she doesn't understand what a division on the screen means, or even what a "tick mark" is.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 10:22:51 AM
In the first instance that display was to determine the applied frequency.  Not the voltage.  In the second instance - the DC voltage is NOT applicable.  Therefore - the voltage across the gate should be read as an AC voltage.  That's the advices that I was given.  Left to my own devices then I would say that the zero crossing line is midway between the peaks of the voltages displayed and the voltage should be read accordingly.  Therefore the value is something less than 6 volts.  And this adjustment because the signal from the generator is NOT DC but AC. 

Now - PicoWatt - let me know something from you.  I'd like to see it again - in black and white.  You have advised us that actually the offset as displayed needs to be applied to ALL values.  Let me know what you mean?  Are you suggesting that we must adjust the battery voltage from the mean average voltage displayed as DC to that -170 odd volts shown in the ofs display number?  And equally - are we to determine the voltage across the shunt to be offset by some 4 volts positive as displayed in that offset box?  Let me know.  Then I'll take your argument straight to my expert for comment.  It will be most entertaining.

Again,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I must respectfully disagree with the answer you have given.  The voltage indicated on the FIG 3 capture for channel 3 during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive value is shown as approximately +12.5 volts.

I would like to see as well where I said that the offset value must be added to anything.  I did no such thing.  I believe it was you that stated I must somehow use the "ofs" numbers to measure or correct my values from the screen.

Regarding the -172volt offset indicated for channel 2 in that same FIG 3 scope capture, the -172volts is merely telling us how far down the position of the channel 2 zero volts line is from the center of the screen.

Referring again to FIG 3, the zero volt reference indicator to the left of the screen for channel 2 is 1.72 major divisions below the center of the screen.  The vertical sensitivity of channel 2 is set to 100volts per division.  1.72 divisions times 100volts per division is -172volts.  Therefore the zero volts reference line (and indicator) has been positioned (via the offset control) at -172volts below the center of the screen.  And that is what and all the "ofs" numbers are saying.

As to what the indicated battery voltage is.  During the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator is a positive voltage, I see the battery voltage trace (channel 2) as being approximately 2.5 minor divisions above the channel 2 zero volt reference line (again, the indicator to the left of the screen).  Channel 2 is set to 100volts per division.  There are four minor divisions per major division so each minor division equals one fourth of 100volts, which is 25volts.  2.5 minor divisions times 25 volts equals 62.5 volts, which is in close agreeent with the indicated 65volt mean value.

No where in estimating the voltages from optically reading the traces on the screen did I need, use, or require the "ofs" number.

All that is required to read a value off the screen is the "zero reference line" indicated to the left of the screen and the "volts per division" setting for the channel I am measuring. 

PW




Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 10:24:33 AM
Here, PicoWatt. Maybe this will help you explain the offset to Rosemary. Maybe not.

Rosemary, do you realise that the Tek oscilloscope doesn't even display the offset value in a box on the screen, because it is generally of no use or interest to the user? The Zero levels are indicated, of course, but it is up to the user to count the tick marks from the scope's center line to the channel marker if the offset value is, for some strange reason, needed.

In the LeCroy diagram below, from the demo, the offset of the GREEN channel, the common mosfet drains, is explained. The offset value read in the channel settings box is nothing more than the "distance" that the channel's zero marker has been moved from SCREEN CENTER. It has nothing to do with what is traced on the channel. This number will be the SAME no matter what the waveform in the trace is, flatline or the most complex you can imagine... because all it is telling you is how far down or up the trace has been moved-- with the vertical position knob-- from the screen's exact centerline. It has NOTHING to do with the waveform or the values of the waveform's parameters.
You can see that the distance in volts, using that channel's scale, down from center, is the offset value given in the box.

You can prove this for yourself, Rosemary, if you have the scope handy. Just turn it on , don't give it any input, and wiggle the channel position knobs. You will see that the offset value given in the box depends only on where that little zero marker under the channel number on the left side of the screen is, relative to the center of the screen, and scaled by the channel volts per division setting. It has nothing whatever to do with the waveform at all.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 10:35:24 AM
TK,

Although I appreciate your assistance, I was hoping Rosemary and I could have a quiet discussion regarding the points raised.  Surely she has a copy of her paper and the FIG 3 I have been referencing.

I would like to resolve the value readings with her regarding the LeCroy as that is the the scope used in the captures discussed.

But thank-you for your efforts,
PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Rosemary, just considering that very brief portion of the rectangular gate drive pulse that is at its highest value, and not oscillating.... is that portion of the signal DC, or not? I'm talking about a single pulse, just the highest portion, that straight line that persists until the signal drops again and oscillates. DC, or not?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 10:37:40 AM
TK,

Althouh I appreciate your assistance, I was hoping Rosemary and I could have a quiet discussion regarding the points raised.  Surely she has a copy of her paper and the FIG 3 I have been referencing.

I would like to resolve the value readings with her regarding the LeCroy as that is the the scope used in the captures discussed.

But thank-you for your efforts,
PW

OK, I get the message. Have fun. But you are travelling down a well worn and rocky path that leads nowhere.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 10:46:23 AM
Rosemary,

The scope captures discussed were from your papers.  I do not understand how you can think in any way that discussions related to values indicated by those captures are of little value to you or replicators.

The discussions related to values indicated are only "circular" as you say, because you disagree with how I am reading the captures.

I believe this began when I stated that the channel 3 trace in FIG 3 was at +12.5 volts during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive voltage, and I continue to stand by that statement.

PW 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 10, 2012, 11:31:43 AM
Howdy members and guests,

After the repeated requests for Donovan Martin's input the main known NERD RAT collaborator in the two papers or manuscripts Rosemary submitted to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication. I couldn't believe how fast that sharp shovel of Rosemary's with dirt a flying everywhere and went to bury my post under her eighteen (18) in a row postings .... some kind of Rosemary's weird cryptic shorthand script which on it's face is really disturbing the context of the posts.  :o

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316652/#msg316652
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316653/#msg316653
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316654/#msg316654
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316656/#msg316656
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316657/#msg316657
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316658/#msg316658
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316659/#msg316659
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316660/#msg316660
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316661/#msg316661
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316662/#msg316662
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316663/#msg316663
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316664/#msg316664
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316665/#msg316665
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316666/#msg316666
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316667/#msg316667
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316668/#msg316668
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316669/#msg316669
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316670/#msg316670


The problem now after speed reading many of her postings or reply's I found a answer to a question asked about the open source community needing to talk to him as he was the only one that is listed on the newly submitted COP>INFINITY NERD RAT papers with a known engineering background familiar with electronics and has worked with Rosemary on the Quantum 2002 article claiming a COP>17 device in February 2009.  ???

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus                              ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure  ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answer why we haven't heard was directed to Poynt99 and not fully explained or reiterated again to the open source community ever even though it's been asked numerous times by other members and myself. The other thing which seems very dishonest, misleading and misrepresented to everyone is Donovan Martin's name as a "AUTHOR" on both papers .....  :o

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg286294/#msg286294                         Reply #1266 on: May 13, 2011, 08:33:35 PM

Poynty - Donny is NOT working on this.  He's working on other things. His time spent on this subject is very constrained. He'll only be able to concentrate time on this subject when we get formal research funding. He has a young family to support and works 24/7 on his own inventions that are absolutely cutting edge.  Mostly related to improvements on traditional energy savings and water savings.  But as in most 'new technologies' he has to forge all kinds of software and suchlike to get it all going.But he absolutely CANNOT afford time on something as radical as our tests because they do not YET carry enough credibility to afford research funding.  When they do - then he'll come to the party full time.  It's his passion.  But he does not believe in the value of forums although he believes in Open Source.  Not many do believe in the value of forums.  And considering my own history - it's probably a fair concern.  I only stick to it because I believe dialogue has a way of getting to those fundamental issues as well as a means of spreading the word.

Kindest again,
Rosie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears to me that Donovan Martin's name was added to the papers in a attempt to give them some kind of blanket credibility but that cant be true at all when he didn't even work on the COP>INFINITY project in any way shape or form. No wonder he has been a "NO" show at the OU forum and impossible to reach through e-mails for comments on the device, testing and evaluation he did .... there wasn't any he did just students at CUPT in South Africa. I guess a claim of a COP>INFINITY wasn't good enough for Donovan Martin unless it had cash attached to it.

Cheers,
FTC
 ???
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on April 10, 2012, 11:44:15 AM
I think this thread is going nowhere until Rosemary will do some new measurements without
the function generator and post new measurements results and a video showing
her new setup with the 555 timer...


So as I am getting too many private complains about her spamming now this thread,
I am closing this thread now.

Rosemary, when you will have a new experiment with the 555 timer , the battery tests and a new
video and measurement results , just contact me privately and then I can
open up the thread again. Until then , just work on your setup and make new videos
and document it only with the 555 timer and forget the function generator whiich puts energy
into the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I am not opening this thread again because of the legal threat I received of
her lawyer, but maybe there will be coming some new evidence from these tests.

As I don´t like to be threaten by legal action I might pull the plug again, if this
thread goes nowhere again and close it again and make a backup as PDF and
post it in the Download archive and remove it from the forum completely.

Where is the battery drawdown test data of the NERD RAT COP infinity device ?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 01:02:40 PM
Rosemary,

As you can see when look at the scope shots, those major divisions, indicated by the larger "dashes" and the minor divisions by the "dots" are a bit difficult to see.  If your eyes were as worn out as mine, you would moreso appreciate my comment regarding the difficulty in reading the screen.  Also, I always line up an important feature of the trace with a minor division so that it is easier to calculate from the screen.  For example, I would have lined up the zero volts reference line with a minor division to assist in making measurements.  As well, I would have set the trigger delay or horizontal position so that at least one minor division lined up with a cycle start horizontally, which is indeed done in the FIG. 3, as the start of the first full cycle is on a tick mark (not the cycle that begins at the screen far left, but the next positive going edge).

Just so you know my 'scope reading skills can be trusted, I will read your function generator's period from the screen.  This requires measuring horizontally as opposed to vertically.

Again referring to FIG 3, the channel 3 waveform swings positive, stays there for a time, returns to a negative value, stays there for a time, and then the cycle repeats.  I will count the minor divisions between the leading edge of the positive going transitions and arrive at approximately 16.1 minor divisions.  The horizontal timebase is set to 50 seconds per division as per the "50s" at the top left of the screen.  There are 5 minor divisions horizontally per division, so each minor division represents 10 seconds.  Multiplying 16.1 times 10 seconds, I arrive at 161 seconds, or approx. 2.68 minutes.  I can invert that 161 seconds number to arrive at cycles per second, which equals 6.2 milliHertz, which is in good agreement with the readout of 6.17mHz.  The period of time the cycle is at a positive voltage is approx. 1.5 minor divisions, so the cycle is at a positive voltage for a period of 1.5 tmes 10 seconds, or 15 seconds.  From the 161 seconds of the total time, I can subtract the positive cycle portion and arrive at 141 seconds, or 2.43 minutes as the duration of the time the function generator output is a negative voltage.

So, the total cycle time is 2.68 minutes, the period of time within the cycle that the function generator is a negative voltage is ca. 2.43 minutes and the period of time the function generator is at a positive voltage is .25 minutes (15 seconds).  And, the frequency is ca 6.2mHz

Keep in mind that when reading optically, the values will only be as close as one can count divisions and make an estimate of a partial division.  Hence my discussion regarding the use of cursors.  Cursors are movable indicator lines that can be turned on and moved about the screen with the value equal to the distance between them provided by the scope.  This allows measurements to be made without having to resort to this "old fashioned way" where the divisions, or "tick marks" must be manually counted and a bit of math used to determine a value.  I use the cursors all the time.  But on captures as provided in your papers, any measurements desired that are not provided must be gleaned from the screen using the "count the divisions and a bit of math" method.

If we could agree that the captures are being read properly, it would greatly assist in substantive discussions regarding the data that your captures reflect.

PW     

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 01:37:00 PM
Rosemary,

The point to all the 'scope related discussion is this.  Documents are often provided that include scope captures or screen shots.  Although the included text may contain information or measurements the author believes are most important to their discussion, there is often a weath of additional data related to those captures or screen shots that is not discussed.  As they say, a "picture is worth a thousand words", and for us "electronics guys", a multi-channel 'scope shot provides an entire chapter's worth of reading.

It is that additional information contained within those chapters, completely related to the papers you present, that I was attempting to discuss with you. 

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 04:15:45 PM
Picowatt

If you wish to assert that the voltage during the on time of the duty cycle - and across the shunt - is 12 volts then that is entirely your right.  Feel free.  It is NOT correct.  Not according to my own expert advices.  We all know that the voltage across the battery is DC.  Therefore you cannot possibly assert that the voltage across the battery is offset by -172 volts.  Yet you do.  Unlike the obvious requirement for the battery to be DC coupled we also know that the voltage applied by the signal generator is AC.  Therefore you need to refer to the offset value.  Yet you won't.  So you must do as you wish.  Unfortunately it is NOT correct.  But there is nothing to stop you asserting that you are right.  And by the same token I know that I am right.  Our paper has been vetted by real experts in the art who do NOT - like you - hide behind an internet identity.  And they have NONE OF THEM found reason to complain about the representations related to the that Gate voltage. 

And while I greatly appreciate that lesson in the art of reading the screen display which is very kind of you - it is also, nonetheless, somewhat more elementary than even I require.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
I've downloaded the screen shot again for those who are trying to make head or tail of this argument.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 04:48:32 PM
 ;D

 :-X


 :-*
 

(You don't stand a chance, PicoWatt. She has real experts who don't hide behind an internet identity............ but they sure do hide good somehow, because WE HAVE NEVER EVEN ONCE SEEN OR HEARD FROM THEM DIRECTLY, only by reference when Rosie Poser doesn't understand something but wants to pretend she does.)

"those who are trying to make head or tail of this argument"
The only person trying to make heads or tails of this "argument" is you, Rosemary. I don't think there is a single person reading this thread that doesn't understand PicoWatt's several perfectly clear and correct explanations of your scope shots to you. And they all will agree that PW is right and you don't understand what you are talking about.

If there is ANYONE who agrees with Rosemary on this topic they really REALLY should make at least one little post in support of Rosemary's position, with references and checkable citations. Because really, Rosemary needs a little help and support here. ANYONE?

I know there are people reading this thread who think they know how to read a scope. COME ON you silent lurkers. WHERE IS YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROSEMARY?

TURN ON YOUR SCOPE and see for yourself, Rosemary. You don't even have to try to read and understand the operating manual. It is as easy as powering it up and twiddlying some knobs. The offset value will appear in the box, no matter what waveform or AC-DC coupling or channel impedance or ANYTHING. AND: the offset value will always be equal to the DISTANCE, measured in volts according to the channel's setting, from the SCREEN CENTER GRATICLE LINE, to the little underline marker under the channel number displayed at screen left.

WHETHER THERE IS A SIGNAL DISPLAYED OR NOT.

The numbers indicating "ofs" in the channel settings box indicate this trace displacement, nothing more. The TEK doesn't even display the offset in numbers unless you dig for it. But it always ALWAYS displays the offset by the location of the channel markers on the left side of the display.

Remember the 25.6 million Joules "calculation" that was so wrong it was ridiculous, yet took three or four people chiming in for literally WEEKS before she finally had to admit her errors? I do. And this is another case of the same garbage. Rosemary is defending a wrong and indefensible position, and the  only thing that she can come up with in support of her case is "experts who don't hide behind internet identitites" but who are nevertheless invisible and silent.... except in Rosemary's dreams.

And as far as PW's elementary lesson is concerned: Rosemary has been asked similar questions in the past and has NEVER provided an answer that indicates that she has the slightest idea about reading values off of the traces themselves. She has always resorted to numbers in boxes, and doesn't even realize how to use the scope's cursors to give her those numbers in boxes she so adores.

Rosemary, if a waveform has seventeen peaks per 8 and a half  major ticks, and the timebase is set to 0.2 milliseconds per division, what is the frequency of the waveform? Please show your work.

(This little problem can be COMPLETELY answered in less than 60 keystrokes, well under one line of text.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 04:54:34 PM
And TK - while you're there.  You need to explain how it is that you manage to show the voltage across your load resistor without any phase shifts.  Is it another miracle of the TAR BABY?

Rosie Pose,
 :-*
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on April 10, 2012, 05:01:38 PM
Our paper has been vetted by real experts in the art who do NOT - like you - hide behind an internet identity.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

Your "real experts" do not hide behind an internet identity because they have no identity.

They are completely anonymous and have never uttered a word in validating what you say. A figment of your imagination.

YOUR REAL EXPERTS DO NOT EXIST!

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2012, 05:07:53 PM
Your "real experts" do not hide behind an internet identity because they have no identity.

They are completely anonymous and have never uttered a word in validating what you say. A figment of your imagination.

YOUR REAL EXPERTS DO NOT EXIST!

No evolvingape.  They're there.  They just would rather not be associated with the sordid nature of slander and allegation that's rampant on this thread address.  Nor do I blame them.  It seems that everyone is determined to root out the identities of those that I associate with - and yet they none of them see any need to expose their own. 

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on April 10, 2012, 05:17:38 PM
No evolvingape.  They're there.  They just would rather not be associated with the sordid nature of slander and allegation that's rampant on this thread address.  Nor do I blame them.  It seems that everyone is determined to root out the identities of those that I associate with - and yet they none of them see any need to expose their own. 

Rosie Pose

Your full of shit Rosemary!

I am asking you who your experts are, my name is Robert Mason, as you very well know and have always known.

I SAY YOUR EXPERTS DO NOT EXIST!

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 05:32:00 PM
Rosemary, where is YOUR evidence for "phase shifts" that you are talking about? I see none whatsoever in anything you have EVER posted lo these many years.

And I don't give a hoot about the identity of your experts. I don't even care if they exist any more. I just want SOMEBODY somewhere anywhere to chime in and tell us that we've been wrong all this time, that the scope manuals and Agilent documents are wrong, and that YOU ARE RIGHT about your assertions re offset and function generator current, for just two examples.

PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL TELL US THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. Because you have PW, MH, .99, me, and others who are telling you that you are wrong, and the strange thing is... WE ALL CITE PROOFS and REFERENCES that can be checked. And all you can do is to "assure" us that your "experts" haven't complained. Well... the reviewers of your papers are experts and they complained---by dumping your papers into the wastebasket.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 05:44:12 PM
@PW:

Excellent example using the horizontal scale to determine the very slow frequency shown. But there is also a much higher frequency shown on the scope's display. Big "M" means megaHertz, and little "m" means milliHertz, right?

At the bottom of the LeCroy shot above, in the grey stripe that contains the "LeCroy" name, the sample rate and the RTC reading,  there is a figure given as   "  f=2.34324MHz  ".

What does this figure represent? 

(Note where the scope's trigger is set: on the top Yellow CVR channel, right smack dab in the middle of an oscillation burst.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 07:21:58 PM
And TK - while you're there.  You need to explain how it is that you manage to show the voltage across your load resistor without any phase shifts.  Is it another miracle of the TAR BABY?

Rosie Pose,
 :-*

No, it's an expression of your own wilful ignorance and refusal to communicate clearly and in standard terminology.

Are you talking about the phase relationship shown in Paper 2, Figure 8?

Are these the phase shifts I'm not managing to show?

(For those who are able to understand: The below picture is a zoom of Tar Baby's oscillations, driven by the 555 timer in the standard manner.)

The lesser amplitude trace is taken directly at the battery and is shown at 5 volts per division, and the greater amplitude trace is the voltage drop across the CVR, taken at 0.5 volts per division. I have used the "offset" or vertical position controls to overlay these traces on the center graticle marker, hence the absolute voltage values are lost-- but they are irrelevant for this demo.
(In Rosemary's scope channel boxes, the "ofs" figure would read 0 or close to it.) No horizontal tomfoolery has been applied and the scope is showing the correct phases.

And the normal 180 degree phase difference between a voltage and a current trace can clearly be seen, and additionally a smaller true "phase shift" of a few degrees can just barely be detected, caused by the same effect that will make the integrated multiplication of these two traces right here.... yield an OU result.

Apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 07:42:45 PM
Picowatt

If you wish to assert that the voltage during the on time of the duty cycle - and across the shunt - is 12 volts then that is entirely your right.  Feel free.  It is NOT correct.  Not according to my own expert advices.  We all know that the voltage across the battery is DC.  Therefore you cannot possibly assert that the voltage across the battery is offset by -172 volts.  Yet you do.  Unlike the obvious requirement for the battery to be DC coupled we also know that the voltage applied by the signal generator is AC.  Therefore you need to refer to the offset value.  Yet you won't.  So you must do as you wish.  Unfortunately it is NOT correct.  But there is nothing to stop you asserting that you are right.  And by the same token I know that I am right.  Our paper has been vetted by real experts in the art who do NOT - like you - hide behind an internet identity.  And they have NONE OF THEM found reason to complain about the representations related to the that Gate voltage. 

And while I greatly appreciate that lesson in the art of reading the screen display which is very kind of you - it is also, nonetheless, somewhat more elementary than even I require.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
I've downloaded the screen shot again for those who are trying to make head or tail of this argument.

Rosemary,

My apologies Rosemary, but from your response, I see that not only can you not read a 'scope, but as well, you apparently cannot manage to read or comprehend concisely written English word.

I have never asserted "12 volts" regarding the shunt.  Nor have I asserted that the battery voltage is, or must be, offset by -172volts.  The only person who stated that the "ofs" numbers must somehow be used in making measurements was you, not me.

Your responses are very telling.  I now realize that any attempts to have a discussion with you of a technical nature regarding your papers would be pointless and entirely in vain.

I also realize that any discussions of a technical nature "from you" should be considered very carefully and "taken with a grain of salt".

You are indeed your own "technology's" worst ambassador ...

Sincerely,
PW

 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 07:42:58 PM
TK:

I am also curious to know what the 2.34324 MHz means.  In looking at the DSO capture you can see that it is capturing 500 seconds and it can store 500K points (I assume per channel).  So that makes sense to see that the "1kS" on the display corresponds to a sampling rate of 1 kHz.

Note that means that the oscillation waveforms are grossly undersampled because we know the oscillations are in the 2-4 MHz range.  The DSO in this case shows the negative oscillation mode "gate" signal is at 6.17 MHz.  Personally I would want to double check this because of the nature of the setup but let's assume it's right for now.

Even through the waveform is way undersampled, in theory "Monte Carlo" methods could come into play here and the "VV" calculation is actually legit.  But I personally would much prefer to do a "VV" calculation on a tiny tiny sliver of the waveform with at least 8X Nyquist sampling, and try to line up a perfect number of cycles, to see what the "VV" calculation would say in that case.  I am not sure if the scope can sample in the 50-100 MHz range though.

Going back to the subsampling in the DSO capture, I am just not comfortable with a "Double Monte Carlo" "VV" calculation.  I have never played with a DSO and explored what happens when you are subsampled so I am just guessing.

In a way this is all academic because the battery "voltage" is a fake-out.

Rosemary:

You have to be aware of a pattern:  Instead of trying to engage and understand the function generator current flow issue, you are belligerent and put up a fight.  Instead of trying to understand how you read voltages off of the DSO and engaging and trying to learn, you say that you are going to take this up with your "experts."

It's all just you being combative for no reason.  I read PW's discussion of the offset voltages for the DSO and he is absolutely correct - and that's coming from somebody that has barely even used a DSO!  Almost no companies had DSOs in my time.  They were too expensive and probably couldn't store more than 1/1024th the number of samples that today's DSO can store.   :-X

You are just wasting time and energy.  You are talking to experts but you don't want to listen to them and instead you want to fight tooth and nail all the way.  It's the old cliche, you are your own worst enemy.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 07:50:09 PM
I am sensing some convergence here!

Quote
You are indeed your own "technology's" worst ambassador ...

Quote
It's the old cliche, you are your own worst enemy.

 :P

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 08:08:38 PM
@PW:

Excellent example using the horizontal scale to determine the very slow frequency shown. But there is also a much higher frequency shown on the scope's display. Big "M" means megaHertz, and little "m" means milliHertz, right?

At the bottom of the LeCroy shot above, in the grey stripe that contains the "LeCroy" name, the sample rate and the RTC reading,  there is a figure given as   "  f=2.34324MHz  ".

What does this figure represent? 

(Note where the scope's trigger is set: on the top Yellow CVR channel, right smack dab in the middle of an oscillation burst.)

TK,

I was indeed warned...

What is this, 'scope 101?  I have spent way too much time on this already, but yes, trigger source ch1, DC, and on a rising edge, trigger level is at +320 millivolts, and trigger frequency, that is, CH1, 2.34 MHz.  Because of the nature of the duty cycle, I would want confirmation of that freq.  I can't give you a visual read of the feq at this time base, as the osc's are too close together.  But you already knew all this.

Note where the trigger settings are in FIG 4, which explains why the 'scope is reading f:0.00000 Hz.

Thank-you for the "quiet time" but I see, as you warned, it was entirely in vain.  Possibly the info I provided may assist other readers in reading 'scope shots in general, otherwise my time was completely wasted.

PW 



 



 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 08:26:36 PM
MH,

A visual read of FIG 4 indicates the osc freq is about 1.56MHz.  The trigger is set poorly for that capture, and as well, the osc freq may not be all that stable.  The trigger frequency in that shot is f:0.00000 Hz, which means at these trigger settings, the 'scope can''t provide a frequency.  Also, the mean for CH3 is stating the frequency as 1.431MHz, but as noisey as that channel's indicated signal is, I would rather trust my visual read of 1.56MHz.

In FIG 3, the trigger frequency calculations the scope is doing related to channel 1 are being interrupted for 15 seconds during each of the overall time periods of the FG waveform and therefore the scope is likely providing an inaccurate read of the CH1 frequency.  One might be able to adjust the indicated freq using a bit of math versus the duty cycle, but I wouldn't. 

If no settings were changed as to the FG offset, etc, that would affect osc freq between the captures of FIG3 and FIG 4, I would trust the visual read from FIG4 of the osc freq I made, and use the 1.56MHz as the best determination of the osc frequency.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 08:29:22 PM
Ah ha!  The sampling frequency is 2.34 MHz.  I can grok that.  Perhaps someone else can try to get into the grokin' groove.

I was suspicious about that 6.17 MHz stuff also.

It's only grok'n'roll but I like it.....
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 08:39:23 PM
Ah ha!  The sampling frequency is 2.34 MHz.  I can grok that.  Perhaps someone else can try to get into the grokin' groove.

I was suspicious about that 6.17 MHz stuff also.

It's only grok'n'roll but I like it.....

MH,

The sampling frequency for FIG. 3 is 1K samples per second.  The 2.34MHz is the 'scope "guessing" at the channel 1 trigger frequency.  The trigger frequency (osc on CH1) is being interrupted for 15 seconds every FG period.  The scope is having to deal with that as best it can at this time base/sample rate and the 2.34MHz number is really not usable for anything.  See my previous post.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 08:55:41 PM
MH,

A more accurate visual ("optical", as I use glasses!) read of the osc freq in the FIG 4 capture (I zoomed in) is closer to 1.515MHz.

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 09:04:47 PM
Yep, PW, and thank you for answering clearly and concisely. Below I attach a basic "rap sheet" from LeCroy re their 300-series scope displays, confirming that the  number I asked about is the frequency of whatever triggered the display, and that the trigger markers on the scope are the little triangle at the top (indicating the horizontal trigger time instant) and the vertical marker on the right, color coded as to channel sourcing the trigger.

You've noted that at least one of the RA scopeshots is from a "stopped" scope, and the others are stored memory traces. I'm not sure if the scope displays the trigger signal frequency when the scope is showing a live but stopped signal; presumably the stored memory traces preserve all information at the time of storage, but I can't recall exactly.

The oscillation frequency as determined from the visual reads is, I agree, somewhere in the 1.2-1.6 MHz area. And as I believe I have shown, added inductance in the battery lead wires and intercell jumpers affects the oscillation frequency. TarBaby's relatively short leads (and fewer batteries) are producing an oscillation frequency in the 2.4-3.0 MHz range.

No wonder my batteries are running down.    >:(
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 09:07:48 PM
All,

Lecroy user start-up manual for WaveJet 300 series for anyone interested.

http://cdn.lecroy.com/files/manuals/wj-gs_revb.pdf

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
TK,

You beat me posting the startup guide link.  You win...

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 09:14:09 PM
TK,

How did I miss that big STOP sign?

You are most likely correct regarding the trigger frequency indication for FIG4.  I had not seen we were "standing still". 

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 10:47:00 PM
PW, TK:

Thanks for all of the good info.  I was "sneaking in" a posting at lunch.  I agree about the frequency of the triggering.  You can't be sure how the 'software guts' are handling irregular signals with 'high freq - dead - high freq - dead' triggering.  Sometimes 'smart' is good, sometimes 'too smart' is bad.  In theory an algorithm could reject three out of 10 'oddball' frequency samplings, bla bla bla.

In 1991 the first generation of analog scopes came out that had the "digital vector graphic overlay"  (it may have been raster, not sure) that gave you moveable cursors, and digital info on the scope display itself.  They also auto-triggered... It was like a candy store compared to just a few years before that.

I really loved those 'hybrid' "smart analog scopes."  I thought that they were a dream.

Well.... time has moved on since then!   Those scopes are 'antiques.' lol

Now can we all just get along?  The beatings resume at 8:00.   8)

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 11:17:49 PM
Beatings, bleatings....

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 11, 2012, 02:23:59 AM
Maybe this will help explain the "ofs" utilized by LeCroy?

ETA: First diagram had an error. Now corrected.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 11, 2012, 02:58:47 AM
Howdy members and guests,

After my posting with the proof that Donovan Martin was not involved with the NERD RAT group of expert collaborators in the two papers or manuscripts Rosemary submitted to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication. http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318446/#msg318446   Reply #2102 on: Today at 02:31:43 AM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus                              ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure  ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the interest of finding information on the testing and evaluation done on Rosemary's device with a claim of COP>INFINITY from possibly a collaborator that is listed as a "AUTHOR" with some kind of electronics background that could be contacted.

The next "AUTHOR" of the NERD RAT group of expert collaborators in the two papers or manuscripts Rosemary submitted to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication is Evan Robinson whom as a author and contributor to the research and development to find him and get his comments and maybe some answers to our questions from members here at OU .

PUBLIC RECORDS OBTAINED THROUGH "GOOGLE" - Evan Robinson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mygeni.org/view/weblink.mygeni?wid=1590&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923 (http://mygeni.org/view/weblink.mygeni?wid=1590&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923)     ( EvanRobinson_001_001.JPG )

http://mygeni.org/view/video.mygeni?vid=407&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923 (http://mygeni.org/view/video.mygeni?vid=407&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923)          ( EvanRobinson_001_002.JPG )

http://www.siliconcape.com/profile/EvanRobinson?xg_source=activity (http://www.siliconcape.com/profile/EvanRobinson?xg_source=activity)                                                         ( EvanRobinson_001_003.JPG )

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ainslie (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ainslie)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will be diverting some of my attention to contacting "Evan Robinson" possibly other members may also feel free to contact him now that we know that Donovan Martin had no input in the testing and evaluation with the NERD RAT device with a claim of COP>INFINITY and group of expert collaborators in the two papers or manuscripts Rosemary submitted to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication. I'm also looking for the other collaborators for their possible input here.


Cheers,
FTC
 ;)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 03:07:15 AM
Guys I'll do my best to answer this new slew of posting - but for now, and for the record - POYNTY?  WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?  I sort of expected you, at least, to do a correct analysis - OR - not engage at all.  You're endorsing a whole load of nonsense.  WHY?

But I'll explain.  Meanwhile - rest assured - there has never been a more comprehensive misrepresentation of the functions of that little LeCroy EVER.  More's the pity.  And I'm not sure that I can explain it with the correct terminology.  And it's way too early to get any of my friends to correct it.  So.  I'll give it  my best shot.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 11, 2012, 03:18:25 AM
Guys I'll do my best to answer this new slew of posting - but for now, and for the record - POYNTY?  WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?  I sort of expected you, at least, to do a correct analysis - OR - not engage at all.  You're endorsing a whole load of nonsense.  WHY?

But I'll explain.  Meanwhile - rest assured - there has never been a more comprehensive misrepresentation of the functions of that little LeCroy EVER.  More's the pity.  And I'm not sure that I can explain it with the correct terminology.  And it's way too early to get any of my friends to correct it.  So.  I'll give it  my best shot.

Regards
Rosemary
Rosemary,

I'd be interested to hear what your experts say of my explanation. You could print the annotated scope shot out or email it to them.

What is your objection to the annotated scope shot Rosemary?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 04:01:42 AM
OK.  Starting with this post from TK.

(You don't stand a chance, PicoWatt. She has real experts who don't hide behind an internet identity............ but they sure do hide good somehow, because WE HAVE NEVER EVEN ONCE SEEN OR HEARD FROM THEM DIRECTLY, only by reference when Rosie Poser doesn't understand something but wants to pretend she does.)
This has been answered. I have been urgently advised by many of colleagues that it is a waste of time engaging in any discussion on these forums as they're 'toxic'.  I have persisted.  But ONLY because I am entirely satisfied that our readers are considerably more discerning than is assumed.  And I need to ensure that all aspects of this technology are put squarely in the public domain which they now are.  The fact that they're  challenged on such spurious grounds - is immaterial.  They're HERE.  And they're public.  And last but not least.  I see a real requirement to  to advise our members and readers that over unity has most certainly been breached.  That it's denied by these 'big' players is to be expected.  They're actually only big in their investment to DENY over unity.

Now.  Back to TK.  If you're referring to picowatt's explanation as to how to determine the frequency then rest assured.  I am well able to understand picowatt's explanation.  My grandchildren could.  It's a miracle of clarity.  But it has nothing to do with the issue. And I do not need open support from anyone at all.  Unlike you 'big players' - as MileHigh puts it - I trust I am well able to fight my corner.  I must admit that I struggle with the sheer volume of your posts - but I think, on the whole, I'm managing very well.  One doesn't need to be that clever to expose the sheer nonsense arguments that you rely on.  And I rely on you posting that nonsense - so that I can gauge the lengths that you go to to keep denying everything.  And then as ever.  I rely on our readers to see if they can possibly detect any level of impartiality in any of your posts.  God forbid that ever happens.  Because then you'd get some level of credibility.  Anyway.  Ever onwards...

I have - indeed - been ' 'twiddlying' those knobs' - as you put it.  The offset - as applied by the machine - is ONLY based on its reference to zero.  Nothing at all to do with the 'CENTRE GRATICLE LINE' as you put it.  And presumably you mean graticule.  This falls in the same bracket as your insistence on word 'mosfets' when you mean MOSFET's.  And that's NOT a plowman's apostrophe as you put it.  It is simply a correct application of punctuation.  In any event.  That center 'graticule' line is to enable the user to arrange the display of waveforms as required.  One can scroll left or right to include or exclude more or less waveforms.  I'll give you some downloads when this exercise is finished - to show you its actual function.  And the little 'underline marker' that you're referring to against each channel number is the zero crossing line as applied to the DC coupling of that channel.  On an AC coupling then that same line moves to the center of each peak to peak waveform across whatever waveforms were recorded on that screen.  And the bias is determined when there is more voltage calculated above or below that center line.  So when you write this...
TURN ON YOUR SCOPE and see for yourself, Rosemary. You don't even have to try to read and understand the operating manual. It is as easy as powering it up and twiddlying some knobs. The offset value will appear in the box, no matter what waveform or AC-DC coupling or channel impedance or ANYTHING. AND: the offset value will always be equal to the DISTANCE, measured in volts according to the channel's setting, from the SCREEN CENTER GRATICLE LINE, to the little underline marker under the channel number displayed at screen left. WHETHER THERE IS A SIGNAL DISPLAYED OR NOT.
... then you are displaying a level of ignorance that is abysmal or a level of misdirection that is obscene.  Take your pick.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Poser
edited
changed move to 'more'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 04:06:51 AM
Your full of shit Rosemary!

I am asking you who your experts are, my name is Robert Mason, as you very well know and have always known.

I SAY YOUR EXPERTS DO NOT EXIST!

I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason.  I'm impressed that you disclose this.  Thank you.  And I apologise if I should have known this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 04:15:12 AM
Rosemary, where is YOUR evidence for "phase shifts" that you are talking about? I see none whatsoever in anything you have EVER posted lo these many years.

And I don't give a hoot about the identity of your experts. I don't even care if they exist any more. I just want SOMEBODY somewhere anywhere to chime in and tell us that we've been wrong all this time, that the scope manuals and Agilent documents are wrong, and that YOU ARE RIGHT about your assertions re offset and function generator current, for just two examples.

PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL TELL US THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. Because you have PW, MH, .99, me, and others who are telling you that you are wrong, and the strange thing is... WE ALL CITE PROOFS and REFERENCES that can be checked. And all you can do is to "assure" us that your "experts" haven't complained. Well... the reviewers of your papers are experts and they complained---by dumping your papers into the wastebasket.

TK.  The early and sincere effort of one of my colleagues to address your 'type' was attempted on that hate blog that's dedicated to me.  The response was that loaded with slander and invective that we all concurred.  Better to stay out of it.  Lest anyone's identity be associated with that or indeed - THIS level of engagement.  It's a decision that I ACTIVELY promoted.  And you CITE nothing.  Your continually refer to distortions in a program of disinformation - that is also ENTIRELY belied by its excess. 

Regards to you TinselKoala

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: evolvingape on April 11, 2012, 04:19:02 AM
I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason.  I'm impressed that you disclose this.  Thank you.  And I apologise if I should have known this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Ok Rosemary,

I will leave you alone from now on.

There is nothing more to be said.

RM :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 04:45:55 AM
This post is GOLD

Rosemary, where is YOUR evidence for "phase shifts" that you are talking about? I see none whatsoever in anything you have EVER posted lo these many years.
One would need to be an amateur of dimensions that even I exceed TinselKoala - let alone an 'expert' such as you proclaim to be - to analyse power dissipation against a waveform.  There is invariably some level of phase shift.  And being inductive it's impedance will vary.  Both need to be factored into any power integration and it's complex and fraught with required error margins.  Far better to establish it's dissipation levels empirically.  As we do.  Therefore, indeed, there has NEVER been any waveform downloads taken across the load resistor.  Our protocols OBVIATE the need.  WHY do you not know this?  Aren't you the self declared EXPERT?  One of the 'BIG" boys?  And then.  Back to my question.  HOW do you manage to show us a waveform across the resistor that is perfectly in phase? What's the 'trick'?  TK?  Where do you manage to misrepresent SO much?  Is it all in that 'dark' light? 

And I don't give a hoot about the identity of your experts. I don't even care if they exist any more. I just want SOMEBODY somewhere anywhere to chime in and tell us that we've been wrong all this time, that the scope manuals and Agilent documents are wrong, and that YOU ARE RIGHT about your assertions re offset and function generator current, for just two examples.
This I cannot explain other than my personal preference to 'fight this fight' alone.  You see it shows you up better - as the bully that you are.  I enjoy knowing that I - as a rather forgetful and somewhat senile member of the opposite  - am yet able to fend off your 'incursions' with considerably more skill than you can manage.  You SHOUT.  I DON'T.  You need to SHOUT.  I have no such need.

PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL TELL US THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. Because you have PW, MH, .99, me, and others who are telling you that you are wrong, and the strange thing is... WE ALL CITE PROOFS and REFERENCES that can be checked. And all you can do is to "assure" us that your "experts" haven't complained. Well... the reviewers of your papers are experts and they complained---by dumping your papers into the wastebasket.
I trust that as soon as I have Harti's 'go ahead' to start a new moderated thread - then I will be able to disclose all the authorities that are required.

Kindest regards to you again TK.  Your contributions, as ever, are invaluable.
Rosie Poser
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 05:06:32 AM
@fuzzy::
I see that Evan Robinson, the "page coordinator" of the PESWiki page, has the WRONG DIAGRAM up as the "latest" schematic.
Pretty strange, huh? Maybe somebody should email him so he can correct his error. Also I see that the original Quantum circuit is also published on that same page. And on the Mygeni page... YET ANOTHER incorrect circuit diagram is posted.
That's three incorrect circuit diagrams from a single person... who is now in the Tax Preparation business. Where are the "experts" and "academics" that signed off on that one?

@Rosemary: I find SHOUTING easier than BOLD GLOWING RED, your favorite form of emphasis. Especially when dealing with someone as thick headed and hard of seeing as you are. Do you think suddenly things are going to get better for you on April 12? Try this: stand in a closet and talk to yourself. Do not under any circumstances let anyone in, especially those who are asking you why you are standing in a closet talking to yourself. That's what it's going to be like for you after April 12th. Do you really think that suddenly, all your lurking supporters will breathe a sigh of collective relief that the Trolls MH, FTC, .99, and TK have finally been censored, and they will come out of the woodwork with their successful replications, magic function generators, and scopes that work differently than the manufacturers believe? I don't think so.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 05:12:41 AM
This post is TK's work - off the cuff and on the fly.  LOL
No, it's an expression of your own wilful ignorance and refusal to communicate clearly and in standard terminology.
Nothing 'non-standard' about the need to factor in 'phase shift'.  And there's nothing wrong with the terminology. What's lacking is your understanding of phase shifts.
Are you talking about the phase relationship shown in Paper 2, Figure 8?Are these the phase shifts I'm not managing to show?
NO :o Why should you even suggest this?  :o Why don't you know?  Why do you even ASK?  Frankly TK, if I didn't know better I'd assume you have no CLUE how to determine the level of energy dissipated at a load.  Who would have thought?  And through pages and pages and pages and threads upon threads upon threads - you've been DEBUNKING.  So MUCH.  EVERYWHERE.  I would strongly recommend you learn how to do power analysis if you're to be given the kind of credit you think is owed to you. 
(For those who are able to understand: The below picture is a zoom of Tar Baby's oscillations, driven by the 555 timer in the standard manner.)The lesser amplitude trace is taken directly at the battery and is shown at 5 volts per division, and the greater amplitude trace is the voltage drop across the CVR, taken at 0.5 volts per division. I have used the "offset" or vertical position controls to overlay these traces on the center graticle marker, hence the absolute voltage values are lost-- but they are irrelevant for this demo.
You say this - and then you SERIOUSLY propose that you've answered anything at all.  At a glance - if I was to determine the power dissipated at the load resistor in the light of the phase angle shift that you're disclosing in that picture to this post - then there would be absolutely NO heat dissipated at the load resistor WHATSOEVER.  Does that comply with the evidence?  TK?  I'll watch the video when I've finished these posts and find out for myself.
(In Rosemary's scope channel boxes, the "ofs" figure would read 0 or close to it.) No horizontal tomfoolery has been applied and the scope is showing the correct phases.
Dear God.  I had, up until now - assumed that you were on a disinformation program.  It seems that you actually believe this?  I know for a fact that you used a LeCroy.  I've seen it in your early videos.
And the normal 180 degree phase difference between a voltage and a current trace can clearly be seen, and additionally a smaller true "phase shift" of a few degrees can just barely be detected, caused by the same effect that will make the integrated multiplication of these two traces right here.... yield an OU result.
I now see your Achilles Heel TK.  You have NO CLUE how to do power analysis.  And you have NO CLUE about phase shifts.  I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER.

I'm leaving in this link - albeit yet another attempt at self promotion.  Because THIS video I really want to watch.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI)

Ever Rosier
 :)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 05:15:05 AM
Quote
One would need to be an amateur of dimensions that even I exceed TinselKoala - let alone an 'expert' such as you proclaim to be - to analyse power dissipation against a waveform.  There is invariably some level of phase shift.  And being inductive it's impedance will vary.  Both need to be factored into any power integration and it's complex and fraught with required error margins.  Far better to establish it's dissipation levels empirically.  As we do.  Therefore, indeed, there has NEVER been any waveform downloads taken across the load resistor.  Our protocols OBVIATE the need.  WHY do you not know this?  Aren't you the self declared EXPERT?  One of the 'BIG" boys?  And then.  Back to my question.  HOW do you manage to show us a waveform across the resistor that is perfectly in phase? What's the 'trick'?  TK?  Where do you manage to misrepresent SO much?  Is it all in that 'dark' light?

There you go again Rosemary. Word salad, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, lies. Back to MY question: where is YOUR evidence of these phase shifts you demand that I show.... even after I show them in a video and in still photos?

Again: lesser amplitude trace is the oscillations at the battery terminals, and the greater amplitude trace is the oscillations on the CURRENT VIEWING RESISTOR, exactly the measurements that YOU are multiplying in your LeCroy math traces in your paper, and showing the exact same "phase shift" that you claim I do not show... and AGAIN you have crammed your foot even deeper into your mouth than ever before.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 05:23:12 AM
Rosemary,

My apologies Rosemary, but from your response, I see that not only can you not read a 'scope, but as well, you apparently cannot manage to read or comprehend concisely written English word.I have never asserted "12 volts" regarding the shunt.  Nor have I asserted that the battery voltage is, or must be, offset by -172volts.  The only person who stated that the "ofs" numbers must somehow be used in making measurements was you, not me. Your responses are very telling.  I now realize that any attempts to have a discussion with you of a technical nature regarding your papers would be pointless and entirely in vain.I also realize that any discussions of a technical nature "from you" should be considered very carefully and "taken with a grain of salt". You are indeed your own "technology's" worst ambassador ...

Sincerely,
PW
Picowatt - I take it that this is your considered opinion.  And this thread certainly promotes opinions. And no need to apologise for that opinion.  You share it with the exalted company of those such as TK, MileHigh and Glen Lettenmaier.
 
 Kindest regards
 Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 05:26:09 AM
And...ONCE AGAIN.... I offer Tar Baby to any interested third party with the equipment and knowledge to test it, as long as Ainslie's device is tested alongside, by the same protocols and analyses. I don't even care what they are, right or wrong.... because my ONLY CLAIM is that Tar Baby performs just like Ainslie's device in all significant respects.

SIDE BY SIDE TESTING. I'll gladly send this box of stuff off to anyone for testing, as long as Rosemary does the same, the devices are tested and analyzed the same, and the results are published openly.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 11, 2012, 05:44:04 AM
Rosemary,

After reading my posts regarding how to visually make measurements from the screen of an oscilloscope, do you now agree that the offset values displayed on the screen next to "ofs", have absolutely nothing to do with making measurements off the screen?

Or do you stand by your original assertion below?  Which is the very first post mentioning those offset numbers by anyone.  If you recall, you were in disagreement with my 'scope reads because I was not factoring in whatever is stated by you in the following quote:

Picowatt

Look again at those screen shots.  You'll see channels 1 through 4 - on the base line display.  It indicates that the display is DC.  Then look at the offset values that follow.  It indicates the PEAK TO PEAK VOLTAGES with their 'bias'.  That's the number to apply to the Channel 3 display as the Channel 3 display is actually and obviously AC.

Regards,
Rosemary

PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 05:51:39 AM
And MileHigh I LOVE your posts.  Always a pleasure to answer you.  Somehow I get it that your posts are not as MALICIOUS as your 'friends'. Perhaps it's because you use better English.
TK:I am also curious to know what the 2.34324 MHz means.  In looking at the DSO capture you can see that it is capturing 500 seconds and it can store 500K points (I assume per channel).  So that makes sense to see that the "1kS" on the display corresponds to a sampling rate of 1 kHz.Note that means that the oscillation waveforms are grossly undersampled because we know the oscillations are in the 2-4 MHz range.  The DSO in this case shows the negative oscillation mode "gate" signal is at 6.17 MHz.  Personally I would want to double check this because of the nature of the setup but let's assume it's right for now.
You're absolutely right MileHigh.  But the number of samples per the LeCroy is actually 500 000.  Over an extended period which applies to that first test - we certainly have an 'undersampling' - or better put - a reliance on an 'average'.  But that average is also correct - as shown in the average DC value over the batteries.  It's well within the margins of errors required to evaluate that waveform.  But well done for being the only one to point out anything valid at all.
Even through the waveform is way undersampled, in theory "Monte Carlo" methods could come into play here and the "VV" calculation is actually legit.  But I personally would much prefer to do a "VV" calculation on a tiny tiny sliver of the waveform with at least 8X Nyquist sampling, and try to line up a perfect number of cycles, to see what the "VV" calculation would say in that case.  I am not sure if the scope can sample in the 50-100 MHz range though.
We have another sample of precisely this - which is also included in that paper.  Take a look.
Going back to the subsampling in the DSO capture, I am just not comfortable with a "Double Monte Carlo" "VV" calculation.  I have never played with a DSO and explored what happens when you are subsampled so I am just guessing.In a way this is all academic because the battery "voltage" is a fake-out.
So much good sense and then this?  How is the battery voltage a 'fake out'?  It most certainly is NOT.
You have to be aware of a pattern:  Instead of trying to engage and understand the function generator current flow issue, you are belligerent and put up a fight.  Instead of trying to understand how you read voltages off of the DSO and engaging and trying to learn, you say that you are going to take this up with your "experts."
MileHigh - give me a break here.  My reference to experts only relates to the question put to me by picowatt - with a repetition that boarded on 'combative' was how it could be that the OFFSET did not correspond to the Channel 3 display of the gate voltage?  I had NO CLUE.  But now I most certainly DO understand.  The waveform across the gate should be AC coupled.  Our machine defaults to DC coupling - required for the analysis of the battery supply and for the shunt that determines the current to and from that supply.  That then explains all.  But somehow it seems that out of the 3 of you - or is it 4 - I'm the only one who understands my explanation.
It's all just you being combative for no reason.  I read PW's discussion of the offset voltages for the DSO and he is absolutely correct - and that's coming from somebody that has barely even used a DSO!  Almost no companies had DSOs in my time.  They were too expensive and probably couldn't store more than 1/1024th the number of samples that today's DSO can store.   :-X
I'm not an expert.  But I assure you that I am well able to find my way around the LeCroy.  The Tektronix not so much.  But then I didn't have that machine for more than one week - I think it was. 
You are just wasting time and energy.  You are talking to experts but you don't want to listen to them and instead you want to fight tooth and nail all the way.  It's the old cliche, you are your own worst enemy.
WHO are the experts?  Picowatt?  Or TK.  And what exactly is their expertise?

Kindest regards MileHigh
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 06:05:54 AM
Rosemary,

I'd be interested to hear what your experts say of my explanation. You could print the annotated scope shot out or email it to them.

What is your objection to the annotated scope shot Rosemary?
No Poynty.  You actually wouldn't want me to circulate that.  Or if you do - then you must also know that you're simply circulating a great number of utterly erroneous annotations.  The OFFSET value has NOTHING to do with a 'graticule' reference.  It has EVERYTHING to do with that little line at each channel reference.  It indicates the zero crossing line.  THAT'S IT.  The numbers displayed in the box - relates to the peak to peak voltage which only has relevant to an AC coupled voltage.  Therefore it ONLY applies to the AC input from the signal generator.  The center graticule 'vertical' is to help the user to select the appropriate waveforms over whatever period is intended.  Nothing else.  And I can scroll - as mentioned to the left or the right to include or exclude more or less - as required.  The trick is to scroll to give as balanced a display as possible.  And then one simply takes the screen shot from that point.  This is better enabled if one freezes the shot and then adjusts as required to get that sample best represented.  If one takes a shot in real time then one may not have a representative shot of those waveforms.  But frozen or in real time - it still gives an accurate value of the mean averages where they're DC coupled - or the bias where they're AC coupled.  We never 'touched' the AC coupling as our interest is in determining the power from the battery.  And that needs a precise reference to ZERO.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 06:06:08 AM
Quote
I was not factoring in whatever is stated by you in the following quote:

I had to LOL about that one!  We need secret decoder rings!

C'mon Rosie Posie you need to shift gears.  Did you see that nice annotated diagram explaining the meaning of the DSO offsets to you that Poynt made?

You have to grok Rosie....  Grok grok grok....  And then thank Poynt for making the effort to explain the concept to you.

Try getting over some small learning humps.  Take some baby steps.

The goal should be to draw up a simple test plan that everyone agrees on and do the actual testing.  You are going to be in shock when the light bulbs dim out sooner than you expect.  We dare you to follow through and prove us wrong!

You know what I have said... We are not mindless guppies swimming against the glass in a fishbowl.  Logic and reason have to prevail.  When you say stuff like, "I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER."  it's mindless guppy talk.

Do you want to draw up a test plan and then do the dim bulb testing?  If you do you desperately need our help.  You need an epiphany and you have to open up and engage and try to learn.

Right now you are inside your own fishbowl and don't realize how you are being perceived.  You have to engage and be civil and express a desire to learn.  Without that you are toast!

That's my last try.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 06:14:59 AM
And...ONCE AGAIN.... I offer Tar Baby to any interested third party with the equipment and knowledge to test it, as long as Ainslie's device is tested alongside, by the same protocols and analyses. I don't even care what they are, right or wrong.... because my ONLY CLAIM is that Tar Baby performs just like Ainslie's device in all significant respects.

SIDE BY SIDE TESTING. I'll gladly send this box of stuff off to anyone for testing, as long as Rosemary does the same, the devices are tested and analyzed the same, and the results are published openly.

I will NOT associate with you TinselKoala - on any formal basis.  You are utterly disqualified as a representative of anything other than an absurd attempt to DEBUNK.  And I would NEVER presume to associate our NERD circuit with that absurd apparatus that you IMPLY is a REPLICATION.  It fails in ALL aspects - starting with the voltage reference and the TYPE of LOAD that you're using.  And it ENDS with the entire inability of your equipment to manage the required power analysis - OF ANY KIND let alone the required and careful tuning to establish the test parameters. 

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 11, 2012, 06:19:09 AM
Rosemary,

You needn't bother with respondinng to my last post.  I can see from your past few posts that all efforts were in vain.

So, yes, I stand by my "considered opinion" as you put it.

To all, I will close tonight with a cut from a great album, from a really great guy, one of the nicest, down to Earth  people you could ever meet.

Play it loud, killer drum track!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8&ob=av2e



PW
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 11, 2012, 06:31:06 AM
No Poynty.  You actually wouldn't want me to circulate that.  Or if you do - then you must also know that you're simply circulating a great number of utterly erroneous annotations. 
Not at all Rosemary. I have no shame in that annotated diagram. I know it is annotated correctly. So please do circulate it, I insist (with respect).

Quote
The OFFSET value has NOTHING to do with a 'graticule' reference.  It has EVERYTHING to do with that little line at each channel reference.  It indicates the zero crossing line.

The "ofs" offset number indicates the voltage offset (or difference) between "that little line at each channel reference" as you reference it, and the middle horizontal graticule I've highlighted in green. I've shown this offset with the double-ended arrows in two cases (orange and fuchsia) in the diagram.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 06:48:29 AM
MileHigh - I've just taken a read through my last few posts.  I see NOTHING that I've written related to the quote that you made'I was not factoring in whatever is stated by you in the following quote:' Where did I say that?  Or are you referring to something you said?  Not sure what this is about MileHigh.  You'll need to explain.  Which means that I'm not sure of the source of your merriment here...
I had to LOL about that one!  We need secret decoder rings!
nor for that matter what you mean by this?
C'mon Rosie Posie you need to shift gears.  Did you see that nice annotated diagram explaining the meaning of the DSO offsets to you that Poynt made?
And MileHigh I'm OLD.  What does 'grok' mean?  I've never been able to work it out.
You have to grok Rosie....  Grok grok grok....  And then thank Poynt for making the effort to explain the concept to you.
And while I'm always ready to thank any valid contribution to this discussion - I'm afraid Poynty's annotations are a 'tad' out.
Try getting over some small learning humps.  Take some baby steps.The goal should be to draw up a simple test plan that everyone agrees on and do the actual testing.  You are going to be in shock when light bulbs dim out sooner than you expect.  We dare you to follow through and prove us wrong!
Frankly MileHigh - I'm also anxious to find this out.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 06:49:05 AM
You know what I have said... We are not mindless guppies swimming against the glass in a fishbowl.
Glad to hear this.
   Logic and reason have to prevail.
I agree.  Wholeheartedly.
When you say stuff like, "I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER."  it's mindless guppy talk.
Not actually MileHigh.  The relationship between current and voltage as shown by TK - most CERTAINLY will result in zero energy being dissipated.  It seems that you ALSO can't do power analysis.  Golly.  If I'd known all this sooner I'd have made a meal of it.
Do you want to draw up a test plan and then do the dim bulb testing?  If you do you desperately need our help.  You need an epiphany and you have to open up and engage and try to learn.
Indeed.  I have much to learn.  But it is patently evident that so do you.  And what you need to learn is some rather elementary facts related to voltage analysis.
Right now you are inside your own fishbowl and don't realize how you are being perceived.  You have to engage and be civil and express a desire to learn.  Without that you are toast!
I'm of the opinion that the only ones who are being 'toasted' are the rather fatuous pretensions related to TK's power analysis.  They're bereft of any sense at all.  With or without respect.
That's my last try.
I sincerely hope so MileHigh. 

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 07:12:36 AM
Not at all Rosemary. I have no shame in that annotated diagram. I know it is annotated correctly. So please do circulate it, I insist (with respect).

The "ofs" offset number indicates the voltage offset (or difference) between "that little line at each channel reference" as you reference it, and the middle horizontal graticule I've highlighted in green. I've shown this offset with the double-ended arrows in two cases (orange and fuchsia) in the diagram.

Poynty - I've just seen this.  Luckily.  When I change to AC coupling then the ONLY thing that changes is the position of that zero reference line against each channel.  And it moves to the center of each of those peak to peaks. But by all means.  Send me an email of that download with your annotations and I'll try and get back to you tomorrow at the latest.  Then you are free to post those comments wherever you like.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 07:18:19 AM
Quote
"I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER."

I invite you to explain that to us in some more detail please.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 07:19:35 AM
So Guys - that's it ..I hope.  Certainly I've finally managed to answer all posts - for a change.  I've got a few more to make during the course of the day and then - with luck I'll be able to operate on a thread that will be under my own jurisprudence.  I don't think there will be any postings on it for a while.  I've got a lot of work to do to get our apparatus built and ready for testing.  And I've got spade work to do to get those  data loggers up.  And I still need to formalise some kind of relationship with our 'arbiters'.  But I reckon one month - and I and you all will be able to finally determine if there's been any validity in anything at all that we've claimed.  I'm personally interested to see how our batteries perform against the Q-array.  Because, quite frankly - I simply don't know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 07:21:10 AM
I invite you to explain that to us in some more detail please.

MileHigh

LOL MileHigh.  You want me?  To teach you?  I would never presume so much.

Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 07:39:18 AM
No I really mean it, because what you are saying is nonsensical.  So explain your point in more detail and try to work the logic through in your head and find your mistake and then write it out and correct yourself.

That's my challenge to you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 07:51:38 AM
No I really mean it, because what you are saying is nonsensical.  So explain your point in more detail and try to work the logic through in your head and find your mistake and then write it out and correct yourself.

That's my challenge to you.

MileHigh

No MileHigh.  You'll need to do your own research here.  Just as a clue - the power output depends on the level of the phase relationship between current and voltage.  The more out of phase - the less power dissipated.  TK's waveforms are entirely out of phase. 

Kindest MileHigh.  I always thought we could be friends.  Perhaps one day.
Rosie Pose

Actually - let me correct that.  The waveforms shown in that shot of his are entirely out of phase.  I still need to check on the video - if I get around to it.
Again
Rosie
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 08:08:22 AM
Rosemary, I invite you to monitor the voltage and current waveforms of the power supplied to an electric heater, or the heating element under your oxtail soup. Or... just take a straightedge to this scopeshot here, and tell me whether or not you were heating your load at the time.

You are so easy to refute that it isn't even fun any more.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 11, 2012, 08:11:10 AM
Poynty - I've just seen this.  Luckily.  When I change to AC coupling then the ONLY thing that changes is the position of that zero reference line against each channel.  And it moves to the center of each of those peak to peaks. But by all means.  Send me an email of that download with your annotations and I'll try and get back to you tomorrow at the latest.  Then you are free to post those comments wherever you like.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Rosemary,

I can assure you, the very worst thing you could do to present or preserve your data, would be to switch to AC coupling on any of the channels.

Good luck,

PW


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 11, 2012, 08:18:23 AM
Howdy members and knowledgeable experimentalist,

Here is a posting that Stefan did over a year ago with a protocol for the testing and evaluation of the device with a CLAIM of COP>INFINITY ....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg285971/#msg285971    Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 10:28:48 AM

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the
COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there should be a discussion on Stefan's recommendations on the testing and evaluation to be done in a timely manner the items number one (1) through number six (6) is a good starting point for anyone involved doing verifiable testing. There will be of some numbers that will need some correcting for content and new developments that has happened from one year ago prior to any new testing done or required.


1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .


Cheers,
FTC
 ;)

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 08:23:55 AM
I will NOT associate with you TinselKoala - on any formal basis.  You are utterly disqualified as a representative of anything other than an absurd attempt to DEBUNK.  And I would NEVER presume to associate our NERD circuit with that absurd apparatus that you IMPLY is a REPLICATION.  It fails in ALL aspects - starting with the voltage reference and the TYPE of LOAD that you're using.  And it ENDS with the entire inability of your equipment to manage the required power analysis - OF ANY KIND let alone the required and careful tuning to establish the test parameters. 

Rosie Pose

Once again, Rosemary you sniveling coward: I invite ANY independent person or laboratory with the equipment and skills, EVEN ONE OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING, to test both Tar Baby and NERD side by side using the same protocols and analyses. My only claim is that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects.

I am willing to put my device up for testing independently. You are not. My device is ready for testing NOW. You will not be ready.... ever.

I claim that Tar Baby performs just like NERD and I have presented scope shots to prove it. Every scope shot you've shown, I have produced as well with Tar Baby. I have also presented MANY other tests on which NERD and Tar Baby's performance may be compared. It is indeed strange that two devices with identical components and scope trace performance would be claimed by someone to be so different without showing just HOW they are different. I have shown many many ways in which they are the same. YOU have not successfully shown anything, much less how NERD and Tar Baby differ.

And once again you are distorting and lying about Tar Baby. It is constructed according to YOUR most recently approved diagram with the addition of a 555 timer, also as approved by the statements you have made and which can be found in the WIKI page controlled by your co-author. It uses the same component types and values. The voltage used is that which you and .99 agreed would be appropriate for testing. The voltages are monitored in exactly the same positions as given in the demo video and in the various diagrams which you and your team have published. It produces heating in the load commensurate with your stated values at similar current settings. It produces the same phase relationship in the oscillations as yours does. It produces scope shots that look exactly like yours... in fact you have even mistaken one of Tar Baby's for one of your own. And finally, it has been offered for independent testing in side-by-side comparison to your device by independent testers, and it is ready NOW.

Your bluff has been called. Show your cards or fold, Rosemary.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 08:39:42 AM
Rosemary,

I can assure you, the very worst thing you could do to present or preserve your data, would be to switch to AC coupling on any of the channels.

Good luck,

PW

 Hah... AC coupling. Some days ago she accused me of implying that they were using AC coupling (which I wasn't doing at all) and she profoundly denied ever doing it, and so I posted the Tek shot from her video showing one channel set to AC coupled.... again, PW, she doesn't know what AC coupling is, what it's for, how it's used to advantage, why I sometimes use it, or how to interpret it on a scope trace. It's funny watching her contradict herself, claim one thing one day and the exact opposite the next.....It's perfectly clear that all the LeCroy shots have all their channels DC coupled....

AC coupling is very useful, Rosemary, if you need to look at the small amplitude ripple sitting on top of a large DC signal, for example. If you simply used DC coupling and the appropriate vertical amplifier setting to easily see the ripple amplitude and waveform features, your DC value (the OFFSET) would be off the screen up or down. So one selects AC coupling and that large DC component is removed, and yes, the vertical center of the ripple is brought down to the channel's baseline marker, thus losing the absolute amplitude information but allowing the user to view the ripple at high magnification. In the case of the NERD device it might make sense for looking at, for example, the small ripple sitting on top of a 72-volt battery voltage during the oscillations, to determine frequency or p-p amplitude of the ripple. Or, as in the Tek shot from the demo where AC coupling is used for one of the high-voltage traces. But for doing  math, you need to preserve the absolute magnitude (amplitude), so DC coupling is recommended usually.

There, did you see her eyes glaze over? Next we will be _assured_ that my explanation makes no sense to her academics and that I am very short indeed for a self-proclaimed Grand Inquisitor.

Note item # 11  in the Tek screengrab from the video, reproduced below. This little sinewave symbol indicates the channel -- the green trace, in this case the common mosfet drains -- is AC coupled.

(@PW: this is also the only shot I can find where the scope's cursors are used properly. Note the horizontal cursor set (21, 20)  is positioned at one full cycle, and the cursors data box is indicating (17) that, indeed, the period is 100 ms, hence the frequency is 10 Hz. Unfortunately the vertical cursor set (1, 16)  is not usefully positioned.)

Note that Tektronix considers the actual offset _value_ to be of so little significance that it is nowhere displayed on the screen. The channel zero baseline markers, however, are vital and are prominently and clearly displayed at the left margin. LeCroy puts numbers in boxes, the more the merrier even if they are irrelevant. Tektronix makes extremely useful oscilloscopes with very ergonomic displays that make the most of precious screen territory and don't bother to display irrelevant numbers that only serve to confuse the novice user.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 08:47:28 AM
Quote
No MileHigh.  You'll need to do your own research here.  Just as a clue - the power output depends on the level of the phase relationship between current and voltage.  The more out of phase - the less power dissipated.  TK's waveforms are entirely out of phase. 

Actually - let me correct that.  The waveforms shown in that shot of his are entirely out of phase.  I still need to check on the video - if I get around to it.
Again
Rosie

Rosemary, the fact that you are not thinking, and are refusing to take me up on my challenge to you to start thinking, is really most unfortunate.  If you have current flow and there is a resistance associated with your load, then you have power dissipation.  The current and voltage will always be in phase for the resistive component of the load.  You are confusing the concept of capacitive or inductive reactance with resistance.

P = i-squared x R.   You know this formula.

I have no hope.  Good luck on your "moderated" thread.  If we want to respond we can do it on the Tar Baby thread and there will be full cross-pollination.  So the concept of moderation is almost a moot point.

The strange thing is you know you are speaking to people that have worked in electronics and tech for many years and clearly have experience yet you only listen to them when it suits you.  That's Rosieo Poseo "filtered impartiality."

The LEDs of DOOM are glowing off in the distance and the current that lights them is flowing straight through the function generator.  Beware!

MileHigh
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: poynt99 on April 11, 2012, 06:32:58 PM
Rosemary,

I have emailed you a copy of the "ofs" annotated diagram to your gmail account.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you choose.

In terms of any responses, please include detailed comments if anyone asserts that the annotations are incorrect.

In summary, the "ofs" indication is not that useful a piece of information. It actually has nothing to do with measurements involving any of the scope traces themselves.

.99
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 11, 2012, 10:01:56 PM
@fuzzy::
I see that Evan Robinson, the "page coordinator" of the PESWiki page, has the WRONG DIAGRAM up as the "latest" schematic.
Pretty strange, huh? Maybe somebody should email him so he can correct his error. Also I see that the original Quantum circuit is also published on that same page. And on the Mygeni page... YET ANOTHER incorrect circuit diagram is posted.
That's three incorrect circuit diagrams from a single person... who is now in the Tax Preparation business. Where are the "experts" and "academics" that signed off on that one?

Hi Tk,

Yep believe me Evan Robinson was sent several e-mails to each address that was available, on the Mygeni I have actually signed up but haven't attacked the errors yet just to give him a chance to possibly catch up with Rosemary's circus side show. It is very strange though Rosemary insists one COP>INFINITY device schematic but yet the one in her blog site is wrong, the one in paper titled "Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure" is wrong and now the one at PESwiki is wrong also. There is apparently a huge break down in communication between all the authors of the COP>INFINITY papers and then the YouTube video is a total disaster by all technical engineering standards.

I do think that possibly one of the authors is responsible for the YouTube video and or the editing is Riaan Theron whom might of done the two (2) 3D videos on Rosemary's "dooziedont" YouTube account. Riaan Theron of South Africa a expert, and Rosemary needs some kind of a fancy 3D rendering of the Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing blah blah THESIS, and he could do it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo) )  there has been emails also sent to him to find out if he was involved as a author and collaborator in the COP>INFINITY papers and video production.

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 04:19:14 AM
(sound of crickets chirping)

I think we scared her off. Or maybe they finally found the unsecured computer she was using when she was supposed to be in art therapy sessions.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 12, 2012, 05:12:36 AM
So Guys - that's it ..I hope.  Certainly I've finally managed to answer all posts - for a change.  I've got a few more to make during the course of the day and then - with luck I'll be able to operate on a thread that will be under my own jurisprudence.  I don't think there will be any postings on it for a while.  I've got a lot of work to do to get our apparatus built and ready for testing.  And I've got spade work to do to get those  data loggers up.  And I still need to formalise some kind of relationship with our 'arbiters'.  But I reckon one month - and I and you all will be able to finally determine if there's been any validity in anything at all that we've claimed.  I'm personally interested to see how our batteries perform against the Q-array.  Because, quite frankly - I simply don't know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

While it may be true that you have responded to all posts, you have provided few answers of any help or substance to replicators or those reviewing your papers. 

Referring only to the data provided by the schematic and 'scope captures in your first paper, I asked why Q1 was not turning on in FIG 3 and FIG 6, even though it is readily apparent from the 'scope captures that it should be.  Instead of providing an answer, you insist the 'scope was being read incorrectly, which I can assure you, it was not.

Something is wrong with Q1 during the tests referenced by FIG 3 and FIG 6.  Q1 has failed or is not in circuit.  I believe in the tests referenced by FIG 3 and FIG 6, Q1 is in circuit but has sustained damage prior to these tests.  There appears to be additional clamping evident on the CH 3 signal in FIG 3, FIG 4, and FIG 6 during the negative portion of the cycle that is not evident in FIG 5.  This is likely an additional indication of the health of Q1.

In FIG 5, the indicated CH 3 gate drive acheives approx. +6.5 volts and, as it should, Q1 turns on and a current flow of approximately 2 amps is indicated by the CSR trace.

In FIG 3 and FIG 5 the indicated CH 3 gate drive acheives approx. +12 volts and yet, zero current flow is indicated by the CSR trace, which can only mean that Q1 is, for some reason, not functioning.  You argued that the 'scope was being read incorrectly and that it somehow is really indicating only around +6 volts.  Even if this were so, that voltage is still sufficient to turn on Q1, but again, as per the CSR trace, Q1 is not turning on.

It seems the bulk of your observed anomalies or effects are moreso to do with the oscillation phase of your circuit, so possibly the malfunctioning Q1 is immaterial to your claim, or that indeed, it may in the end turn out to be serendipitous.  However, in order to replicate the circuit accurately, this issue as well as a few others needs to be addressed. 

If you are going to have .99's annotated 'scope capture reviewed by someone with a technical background whose opinion you trust, I would appreciate it if you would please print and send this post along as well, and respond with their comments when available.

Possibly .99 can copy this post and email it to you if that makes it easier for you to print.

Thank-you,
PW


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 11:12:19 AM

While it may be true that you have responded to all posts, you have provided few answers of any help or substance to replicators or those reviewing your papers. 
Are you still implying that you're 'reviewing'?  And on what authority?   And are you a 'self appointed' reviewer also implying that TK is 'replicating'? 
 
 The problem as I see it picowatt is this.  This thread was proposed for a multiplicity of reasons - and as I've said - it's objects have rather moved with the wind - shifted with the times.  However.  It was NEVER intended for any of you members to try and 'review'.  Had this EVER been my intention then I would most certainly have produced the corrected papers.  And if you were to ASSUME the right to review then you would need to disclose your proof of credentials.  Which would also require a full disclosure of your name in order to validate those credentials. And for you to propose any kind of review process in the context of a thread that has been 'blazed' to hell with a parade of unprofessional calumny, slander and traducement that is probably unparalleled in any of these forums - is a sheer parody of pretension and absurdity.  It CANNOT constitute a review.  A properly conducted review - by definition - is done in private.  And depending on the terms of that contract - it is either between the reviewer and the editor - or between the reviewer and the collaborators and the editor.  PRECISELY to obviate minor or major amendments that may be required.  I am assured that it is a rare paper that does not need amendment - in the same way that an article may require editing  - or a book - prior its to publication.  Which makes your rather public efforts in this regard - less than professional - less than appropriate and considerably less than morally acceptable.  You IMPLY errors and you PARADE your opinion as FACT before a full determination.   A public review is a contradiction in terms.  The only possible public evaluation would be with a full DEMONSTRATION.  And thus far we have NOT given this.  Else the protocols require that the reviewer accept the facts as given and do not challenge them unless there is clear and unequivocal proof of error - fraudulent or otherwise. And you have PRESUMED much in this regard. 
 
 My further concerns here are based on your rather reckless and public advisement that our Q1 MOSFET is faulty.  We had NEVER changed that transistor.  Certainly not for any of the tests shown in that paper.  The only ones we replaced - two or possibly three of them (I can't quite remember) - were on the Q2 array.  Which also means that if Q1 was faulty for the duration of that First Test then it was and is faulty on all subsequent tests.  While we have, indeed, subsequently replaced that Q1 - it STILL and NONETHELESS - gives us the same values as reported in our papers.  I look forward to showing PROOF of this.  In fact, since this has now become such an overriding concern of yours -  I shall take the trouble to move through a variety of those transistors to PROVE that your complaint related to its integrity - IS UTTERLY VOIDABLE. And I would then demand that you PUBLICLY retract those 'assumptions' of yours.  IF indeed it is acting in a way that is atypical - then it is not dependent on the vagaries of one - but of ALL those transistors.  And it is also MEASURABLE and DEMONSTRABLE and REPEATEDLY so - which, at its least, would make it 'of interest' to SCIENCE.
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 11:53:05 AM
  to PICOWATT continued/...


Correctly you should have requested that we 'check' the MOSFET to determine that it has not somehow been compromised - IF that was your concern.  It is a very easy test to manage this.  And you most certainly should NOT advertise as FACT what has not yet been PROVED.  That is both 'reckless' and 'unprofessional'.  Added to which - if you recall - you asked the question related to the voltage measured on channel 3 with the kind of persistence that - at its kindest - would be considered abusive.  I am NOT in your time zone.  I SLEEP while most of your posts are made.  Why then do you DEMAND such a prompt reply?  And that demand of yours interspersed with abusive echoes from your acolytes as they take that 'reckless' advisement of yours as 'fact'.  They use it as an opportunity to rampage through another 5 pages of this thread, in the space of ONE NIGHT - with ever more samples of their somewhat reckless and liberal doses of slander.  And why should I reply to you at ALL?  Again.  I most certainly am NOT looking for a review.  What you advised was that you were going to replicate.  That is your choice.  I put it to you that you are not qualified to review.  And if you are - THEN PROVE IT.
 
 Then.  To get back to more rather glaring evidence of collusion and collaboration between you and TK et al.  You ENDORSED his video where he showed the oscillations taken over the battery and the load.  Had you been an EXPERT – in any sense of the word – then you would have done better to advise him that he was measuring the 'wrong thing'.  When I pointed this out – together with the glaring omission of some required phase shifts, he came back with a video that was even more glaringly inappropriate.  Why did you not point out to him that the phase shifts referred to have nothing whatsoever to do with the signal from the transistor and the load resistor?  IF indeed you are that EXPERT as you're trying so hard to IMPLY - then you should most certainly be explaining how utterly inappropriate was that nonsense.  That TK could ever seriously propose to establish the rate of current flow from the battery based on a product of the voltage across that load resistor and the battery is alarming.  And that he does this with the improbable evidence of perfect ‘in phase’ voltages – beggars belief.  Not only are there no phase shifts – but what adjustments did he make for impedance?  This is all the proof needed to show that he knows next to nothing about power analysis or that he hopes that no-one reading here does.  And to further compound his generally compounded confusions – he then shows us all - a veritable miracle of coincidence in phase shift between that battery and the resistor?  Which would require the direct intervention of God Himself to orchestrate such a remarkable degree of anomalous co-incidence.  Such PERFECT correspondence would exceed the standard model predictions with implications that put over unity in the shade.  And then too.  He continues to qualify this utterly improbable evidence by giving us a second video where he tries to equate the phase shift in line with the voltage across the transistor and the load?  So utterly OFF the subject.  So far from the point as our Cape is from the North Pole.  So distant from relevance as to be laughable.  And yet YOU and HE SERIOUSLY propose that you're EXPERTS and qualified to do any kind of REVIEW AT ALL?
 
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 11:54:41 AM
Now - I'm still not finished.  To get back to the problem that you saw where the GATE should be entirely ON yet no current is shown to flow from the battery supply.  The OFFSET term is most certainly related to the choice of AC or DC coupling.  Not only was this explained to me but I know this because when and if I apply the AC coupled option then the only thing that varies is that zero reference.  And my advices were most certainly correct.  You should NOT apply the voltage as per the display - but you should superimpose an AC value.  Which is its PEAK TO PEAK value.  But then too - you more than anyone - should be able to explain why the OFFSET on the function generator can vary that reference even further.  And very obviously it is able to move that zero setting to even LOWER than the actual reference as an AC coupled reference.  In effect, instead of loudly and rather repetitively assuring us all that either the instrument is wrong - or that the settings are wrong or that the MOSFET is wrong - you should have known that the DC presentation of the voltage on channel 3 is qualified by other factors.  The performance of the MOSFET is not the result of serendipity.  The position of the zero crossing line on the LeCroy is not subject to vagary.  And it is both possible and feasible to entirely restrict the flow of current depending on that offset. It is determined by the applied OFFSET from a signal generator - whether it's a function generator or whether it's a 555.  Again.  I look forward to showing this in due course. Then to get back to your point where you allege that should I default to AC coupling then I’d corrupt my machine and all its stored data.  What nonsense.  One can choose AC or DC coupling without any ‘damage’ to the machine at all.  We set it to DC because we’re trying to determine a DC value as it relates to the battery supply. 
 
 So.  It is my opinion that your paraded excess of partiality - your attempts at embarrassing me by your continual contradiction of our claim - your obvious lack of knowledge of power analysis - or alternatively - your readiness to endorse TK's obvious lack of knowledge about this - is proof enough that your intentions here are to DENY the evidence.  Which, in my opinion is less than impartial.  And, in any event, I put it to you that you are wasting your time.  There is only one way to evaluate the facts - and that is by demonstration.  Which we will most certainly do.  And now that I have this much meat to show the level of neurotic denial required against our claim - I am more motivated than I have been in a long while. I intend buying our little demonstration WaveJet LeCroy – which thus far has only been on loan.  And I will then have the real pleasure of spending some time filming this to show you all how it is that our numbers in those papers are correctly presented.  Until then I propose that you try and pretend to some level of impartiality and try and correct some of those sad little videos of TK's that he's relying on to earn that fee that he boasts will buy him his Buick and his little house at the coast.  Else you, like him, will lose all credibility based on an obvious want of some unbiased assessments.  And if you wish to pretend to be a reviewer in some new and eccentric context – then feel free.  I for one won’t endorse that pretense.
 
 Regards to you picowatt.
 Rosemary

changed 'lack' to 'excess'
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 12, 2012, 12:00:55 PM
Howdy members and knowledgeable experimentalist,

Here is a posting that Stefan did about a year ago with a protocol for the testing and evaluation of the device with a CLAIM of COP>INFINITY ....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg285971/#msg285971 (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg285971/#msg285971)    Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 10:28:48 AM

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the
COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there should be a discussion on Stefan's recommendations on the testing and evaluation to be done in a timely manner the items number one (1) through number six (6) is a good starting point for anyone involved doing verifiable testing. There will be of some numbers that will need some correcting for content and new developments that has happened from one year ago prior to any new testing done or required.


1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .


Cheers,
FTC
;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 12, 2012, 12:04:51 PM
@fuzzy::
I see that Evan Robinson, the "page coordinator" of the PESWiki page, has the WRONG DIAGRAM up as the "latest" schematic.
Pretty strange, huh? Maybe somebody should email him so he can correct his error. Also I see that the original Quantum circuit is also published on that same page. And on the Mygeni page... YET ANOTHER incorrect circuit diagram is posted.
That's three incorrect circuit diagrams from a single person... who is now in the Tax Preparation business. Where are the "experts" and "academics" that signed off on that one?

Hi Tk,

Yep believe me Evan Robinson was sent several e-mails to each address that was available, on the Mygeni I have actually signed up but haven't attacked the errors yet just to give him a chance to possibly catch up with Rosemary's circus side show. It is very strange though Rosemary insists one COP>INFINITY device schematic but yet the one in her blog site is wrong, the one in paper titled "Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure" is wrong and now the one at PESwiki is wrong also. There is apparently a huge break down in communication between all the authors of the COP>INFINITY papers and then the YouTube video is a total disaster by all technical engineering standards.

I do think that possibly one of the authors is responsible for the YouTube video and or the editing is Riaan Theron whom might of done the two (2) 3D videos on Rosemary's "dooziedont" YouTube account. Riaan Theron of South Africa a expert, and Rosemary needs some kind of a fancy 3D rendering of the Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing blah blah THESIS, and he could do it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo) )  there has been emails also sent to him to find out if he was involved as a author and collaborator in the COP>INFINITY papers and video production.

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 12, 2012, 12:09:51 PM
Howdy members and guests,

Again we have Rosemary totally unaware of the posting or was it a choice Rosemary made on ignoring the posting that's been asked now the FORTH time and posting it's been answered ?

This important "fact" of which schematics were "EVER" used and documented in any testing and evaluation that needs clarification from the "INVENTOR" of the COP>INFINITY device.

The ramifications if this schematic ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) was used and misrepresented as "NOT" being used for testing and evaluation of any high inductive resistor heating loads over 6 amps it wouldn't be professional although at this point does your reputation Rosemary matter it's fairly well been discredited now anyway.

If there is any error it needs to be corrected there cannot be replicators and verifiers assumptions always made because "YOU" Rosemary refuse to answer any questions that may discredit your unproven "Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing" standard model "THESIS" that only you understand, always tied some how to all your unproven COP>INFINITY device(s).

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318062/#msg318062 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318062/#msg318062)        Reply #1911 on: April 07, 2012, 10:45:26 AM

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html) ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ??   

Is that "ONE" question to hard now ....  ???

No more blah, blah, blah ..... I'll keep posting this a thousand times just like you do your THESIS crap until you answer the question !!!

CHEERS,
FTC
  ;)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 01:00:07 PM
Rosemary deserves a prize all right. I just don't know whether to call it the "MYLOW" prize or the "Archer QUINN" prize. Maybe just the "Ainslie" prize.

At least MyLOW and Quinn grasped the principle of "open source" and "replication."

Remember when MyLOW was trying to get everybody to measure the position of his magnets to the hundredth of a millimeter with a caliper? And when Quinn kept promising to show something that actually worked, that he already had made .... and the best he could manage was a fifth of a turn, then he'd stack on some more magnets, smoke another cigarette, and jump up and down yelling "oy've climbed the Wall!!"

Yes.... The Ains-lie prize. Awarded for the highest ratio of words to actual performance. She does approach COP > Infinity in that area anyway. An entire year of talking and not a bit of new data and not a retraction or correction of any of her many errors and false claims.

After all this time we still don't even know what the "correct" schematic is, and the "inventor" has made no effort to clean up the mess of wrong and misleading information that exists, even in the publications of her own co-authors. And instead of carrying on a productive dialog with "replicators" and testers of her extremely radical claims, she engages in this interminable bloviating and "holier-than-thou" attitude while wallowing in the most incredible ignorance and arrogance imaginable, even more so than Archer Quinn. For months and months and months... and to this day we still are encountering conflicting schematics, incorrect mathematics, faulty reasoning, and contradictory explanations of anomalous data..... and I'm not talking about "batteries that don't run down". I'm talking about the scope shots from the apparatus that indicate either a malfunctioning component or some other unexplained mode of operation. In other words, RAW DATA that conflicts with the reported events of the experimentation.

Rosemary Ainslie has been uncooperative, unhelpful, secretive, insulting, misleading and downright mendacious during the entire history of her "open source" project. In fact I believe that more progress would have been made to this point.... had she not been involved at all.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
Look.... Rosemary actually managed to utter one true fact in all that rant above.

Quote
And, in any event, I put it to you that you are wasting your time.

It should no longer be necessary to refute Ainslie's lies and mischaracterisations point by point. It is clear that she has severe cognitive difficulties, since she evidently cannot even comprehend what people say in written text or spoken word. She certainly cannot comprehend what an oscilloscope screen tells her.

What is the phase relationship between the battery oscillations and the shunt oscillations shown in this scope shot, Rosemary? Are you achieving heating of your load here, or not?
How is it different from the phase relationship I show from Tar Baby taken from the same points?  (Taken NOT as you mendaciously claim from some other location of your own imaginings.)

(It appears that the forum is playing games with attachments again. I am referring to Rosemary's Paper 2, Figure 8.)
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 02:04:05 PM
For just one example, she states:
Quote
Then.  To get back to more rather glaring evidence of collusion and collaboration between you and TK et al.  You ENDORSED his video where he showed the oscillations taken over the battery and the load.  Had you been an EXPERT – in any sense of the word – then you would have done better to advise him that he was measuring the 'wrong thing'.  When I pointed this out – together with the glaring omission of some required phase shifts, he came back with a video that was even more glaringly inappropriate.  Why did you not point out to him that the phase shifts referred to have nothing whatsoever to do with the signal from the transistor and the load resistor?  IF indeed you are that EXPERT as you're trying so hard to IMPLY - then you should most certainly be explaining how utterly inappropriate was that nonsense.  That TK could ever seriously propose to establish the rate of current flow from the battery based on a product of the voltage across that load resistor and the battery is alarming.  And that he does this with the improbable evidence of perfect ‘in phase’ voltages – beggars belief.  Not only are there no phase shifts – but what adjustments did he make for impedance?  This is all the proof needed to show that he knows next to nothing about power analysis or that he hopes that no-one reading here does.  And to further compound his generally compounded confusions – he then shows us all - a veritable miracle of coincidence in phase shift between that battery and the resistor?  Which would require the direct intervention of God Himself to orchestrate such a remarkable degree of anomalous co-incidence.  Such PERFECT correspondence would exceed the standard model predictions with implications that put over unity in the shade.  And then too.  He continues to qualify this utterly improbable evidence by giving us a second video where he tries to equate the phase shift in line with the voltage across the transistor and the load?  So utterly OFF the subject.  So far from the point as our Cape is from the North Pole.  So distant from relevance as to be laughable.  And yet YOU and HE SERIOUSLY propose that you're EXPERTS and qualified to do any kind of REVIEW AT ALL?


I have NEVER posted a measurement taken "across the load resistor". I monitor the same points monitored by Ainslie and detailed in the video and the various schematics. The mosfet common drains are actually a critical measurement of performance and indeed are monitored in Rosemary's demo video, but are left out... for some reason.... in the papers. They would reveal instantly, for instance, whether or not there was any problem with one or more mosfets in the operating circuit. But the phase shifts I illustrate, and any power measurements I have made, have always used the voltage drop across the shunt (CVR) and the voltage on the battery-- the same locations used in the NERD team's scope shots, math trace calculations, and performance claims. I can show this on diagrams and the actual circuit. Rosemary cannot show anything to support her contentions about my data. Where has she ever shown any "adjustments made for impedance?" Her math traces are straight point-by-point multiplications of the current trace and battery voltage trace NOT DESKEWED or in any other way "adjusted" for impedance... or even the simple RESISTANCE of the current viewing resistor.

The scope shots that I have posted indicate the same "phase shifts" that are shown in Rosemary's shots. The most recent ones are take ACROSS THE BATTERY and ACROSS THE CURRENT VIEWING RESISTOR, that is, the SAME points used for Rosemary's "MATH" traces shown in all her LeCroy scope shots from both papers and in the video.

Rosemary is simply ranting from her usual place of total misconception, ignorance, and mendacity. Instead of showing evidence for her claims she just gets stuff wrong totally.

Anyone can look at her Figure 8 from Paper 2 and see her phase relationships between the oscillations on the CVR shunt, and the oscillations on the battery trace. And anyone can see that Tar Baby's phase relationships from the same points are the same as those. Anyone who understands how to read the oscilloscope traces, that is, instead of the numbers in boxes.

I would be very glad to have anyone _coherent_ criticise my video demonstrations. Tell me where I'm going wrong in the demos and how to make them better. And I know about lighting and steady camera work, believe me, so you don't need to mention those.

Collusion and collaboration? Rosemary, you are paranoid, literally, and yes that is a psychological diagnosis. PicoWatt and I don't know each other, we have only communicated on this thread and one other, and maybe by one or two PMs of little consequence. We just both happen to be right about what we are telling you... collaborating and colluding in disseminating the truth, I suppose.... truth that you can also get from many other sources, all colluding and collaborating. Even the manufacturers of your oscilloscope are in collusion with us.
PW clearly has much more experience than I do in these matters and apparently actually does work for a living, in stark contrast to myself. You really should learn to respect your "elders" who have studied and practiced what you only dream of and preach. I myself get absolutely no compensation for this, in fact I am out several hundred dollars of my own hard-scrabbled money. Any characterisation of me as some kind of paid minion of the Forces of Free Energy Suppression is, once again, another lie and libel on the part of RA.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 04:07:06 PM
Guys,

That last post of TK's relies on the association of prior claims that were, presumably, not proved.  I have NEVER made any claims about the battery being recharged as a result of that circuit configuration. On the contrary.  We do NOT need that to prove the anomaly of a negative wattage.  Again.  This value is that absurd that it has no meaning at all within any standard paradigms.  However.  I was more than ready to show this to Poynty Point and/or Stefan and/or Professor Steven E Jones.  And right now I'm making sure that we can all evaluate the battery performance in a wholly public demonstration - AS WELL.  Then I, like you, will learn if there is any value at all in that computed 'negative' number.  I simply do not know.  None of us do.  And we'll also be able to test our earlier claim related to COP>17.  And we're more than ready to do this from a 555 signal as from a function generator.  And we intend using both and testing batteries against a control - on both.  That's the first point.

Secondly - I am NOT in a position to evaluate Mylow's claims.  But what I know from my colleagues is that they were never convinced by TK's debunk.  Their opinion was that the 'wire' was superimposed on the film.  I don't know.  I suspect that they both gave up because they were being attacked.  I have NO idea if anyone was there to help Mylow.  But I have LOTS of it.  I have the encouragement of many of you in emails and in personal messages.  And I have my colleagues who are equally committed to these results and to finding explanations for the real and repeated evidence of anomalies.  And I also know that IF I were one fraction weaker than I actually am - the effect of this combined onslaught from these self-appointed commentators - which is just a polite use of the word - would most certainly have dissuaded me from continuing.  Of course it gets me down.  And my family have often requested that I leave this well alone.  But I cannot.  I am compelled to share with you all the REALITIES of these numbers.  And I share that commitment with my colleagues.  These results matter.  They matter in a way that is more important than my health, wealth and happiness.  And I will NOT stop until I manage to prove it.  I would be glad to do a demonstration - provided only that it is publicly and fairly arbitrated.  And frankly if that needs to be shown in a court of law or under the harsh light of a video then I'll do it - either option - AS REQUIRED.

I cannot talk about prior claims.  I only know our own.  And I look forward to showing this to you all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And TK - You seem to object to the number of words that I use in these protests of mine.  They are vastly outnumbered by yours.  And if I add those others by your 'co-conspirators' then they are a mere 'fraction' of your input.  Conservatively I'd say that as a group your contributions exceed mine by a factor of 6.  So.  Don't give me that about 'words'.  You're considerably more verbose.  And you have all of you occupied considerably more thread space than me. 

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 04:18:15 PM
Any characterisation of me as some kind of paid minion of the Forces of Free Energy Suppression is, once again, another lie and libel on the part of RA.

THEN SUE ME.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
(sound of crickets chirping)

I think we scared her off. Or maybe they finally found the unsecured computer she was using when she was supposed to be in art therapy sessions.

And YES.  INDEED.  You DID find my computer last night.  BUT. It was quickly and easily remedied.  Guys, one day I'll give you a detailed account of the number of times this computer is 'attacked'.  Luckily NO HARM DONE YET.  Thank you God.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 04:35:56 PM
Look.... Rosemary actually managed to utter one true fact in all that rant above.

It should no longer be necessary to refute Ainslie's lies and mischaracterisations point by point. It is clear that she has severe cognitive difficulties, since she evidently cannot even comprehend what people say in written text or spoken word. She certainly cannot comprehend what an oscilloscope screen tells her.

What is the phase relationship between the battery oscillations and the shunt oscillations shown in this scope shot, Rosemary? Are you achieving heating of your load here, or not?
How is it different from the phase relationship I show from Tar Baby taken from the same points?  (Taken NOT as you mendaciously claim from some other location of your own imaginings.)

(It appears that the forum is playing games with attachments again. I am referring to Rosemary's Paper 2, Figure 8.)

And TK.  What you need to do is explain that absurd video number where you measure the load in conjunction with the switch.  WHY? 

LOL
Again, and always
Rosy
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 12, 2012, 04:40:19 PM
Rosemary,

I was planning on a replication when I began posting on this thread, which I believed you wanted others to do.  There were discussions with regard to the March demo video and you stated, in paraphrase, that the demo only "relates" to your claims and that our attention should be directed to your papers.  As you have said several times "read the papers", therefore, I have been "reading" your papers. 

As for your concerns regarding my use of the word "review", I was in no way implying that I was doing any sort of "official" review.  The only "review" I am performing is as would be required by anyone desiring to attempt an accurate replication.  As I await the arrival of the IRFPG50's, I am "reviewing" all availabe data so that I can plan and perform such a replication.  I do believe it was your intent to submit the papers for review at some point, but rather than argue over semantics,  I could have, as it pertains to me, used the word "read" as well.   

If replicators are not allowed to ask you what I considered a very simple question with regard to a replication of the circuit and the data provided in your papers, than I am indeed at a loss as to what you desire or expect of others regarding your technology.

When I joined in on this thread, I actually considered that we would be on the same side. 

Assuming the schematic is correct, if someone with a technical background can provide me a logical reason for the action of Q1 as demonstrated in your paper's 'scope captures, other than the two possibilities I have surmised, I will indeed graciously and wholeheartedly admit that I am in error regarding my observation. 

As I thought you were going to send .99's annotated 'scope capture to someone on your team for review, I hoped you could do the same regarding my question.   

PW


Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2012, 05:00:26 PM
And TK as for this...


I have NEVER posted a measurement taken "across the load resistor".
Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor.  Or so you said in that video.   And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR?  And WHY did you identify it as the load?  And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?

The real joke is this.  You complained that we don't take voltages across the load.  Explain this.  IF YOU DARE.

Rosemary
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 05:01:55 PM
And TK.  What you need to do is explain that absurd video number where you measure the load in conjunction with the switch.  WHY? 

LOL
Again, and always
Rosy

I have tried and tried to explain things to you but it's impossible. You do not know how to communicate. For example....
Quote
you measure the load in conjunction with the switch
What are you talking about? The only SWITCH I have ever shown was the one used to switch in and out a brown inductor on a stack of LEDs. The only "load" in that video was the LEDs and the only source was the Function Generator. And you clearly didn't understand it.... so no amount of talk is going to remedy that.... it would be like trying to explain...er.... calculus to a high school dropout.


YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN the answer to PW's question. And YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN why you keep saying things that are clearly wrong, like your assertions about "phase shift". What is the phase relationship shown between the battery trace and the current viewing resistor trace in your Figure 8, Paper 2, which I give as evidence that you are once again..... ignorant of your subject. ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION, and simply stop making these lying assertions without references or support.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 05:11:12 PM
And TK as for this...
Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor.  Or so you said in that video.   And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR?  And WHY did you identify it as the load?  And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?

The real joke is this.  You complained that we don't take voltages across the load.  Explain this.  IF YOU DARE.

Rosemary

You are wrong, and I have changed no videos. You can provide a direct link to any second in any video you know. Why don't you support your claims with links and references? My monitoring locations are indicated in the diagrams below, and are the same as yours, and NEVER have I stated otherwise. YOU, on the other hand, have made many errors in your monitor positions. Just watch your video again for examples.
I have never complained that you don't take voltages across the load. I have frequently stated that the common drain voltage is an important bit of information that you omit from your papers... but you DO show it in the video. The common drain voltage is NOT "across the load".
Again, you distort and misrepresent and outright LIE about me and my videos and my work. And you have the idiocy to imply that I might have hacked into your computer. I assure you... had I done so OR IF ANYONE HAD DONE SO you would not be posting here today.

NOTE that the point marked "F" in the figure below is the MOSFET COMMON DRAIN and is the point that you don't like in my data. But.... your objection is invalid anyway because that's not the point I used for the "power " comparisons.... I used the same points as you did-- the points indicated by "A" and "D" in your diagram, and by "CH1" and "CH2" in my diagram.... the SAME POINTS.
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 06:22:49 PM
Guys,

That last post of TK's relies on the association of prior claims that were, presumably, not proved.  I have NEVER made any claims about the battery being recharged as a result of that circuit configuration. On the contrary.  We do NOT need that to prove the anomaly of a negative wattage.  Again.  This value is that absurd that it has no meaning at all within any standard paradigms.  However.  I was more than ready to show this to Poynty Point and/or Stefan and/or Professor Steven E Jones.  And right now I'm making sure that we can all evaluate the battery performance in a wholly public demonstration - AS WELL.  Then I, like you, will learn if there is any value at all in that computed 'negative' number.  I simply do not know.  None of us do.  And we'll also be able to test our earlier claim related to COP>17.  And we're more than ready to do this from a 555 signal as from a function generator.  And we intend using both and testing batteries against a control - on both.  That's the first point.

Secondly - I am NOT in a position to evaluate Mylow's claims.  But what I know from my colleagues is that they were never convinced by TK's debunk.  Their opinion was that the 'wire' was superimposed on the film.  I don't know.  I suspect that they both gave up because they were being attacked.  I have NO idea if anyone was there to help Mylow.  But I have LOTS of it.  I have the encouragement of many of you in emails and in personal messages.  And I have my colleagues who are equally committed to these results and to finding explanations for the real and repeated evidence of anomalies.  And I also know that IF I were one fraction weaker than I actually am - the effect of this combined onslaught from these self-appointed commentators - which is just a polite use of the word - would most certainly have dissuaded me from continuing.  Of course it gets me down.  And my family have often requested that I leave this well alone.  But I cannot.  I am compelled to share with you all the REALITIES of these numbers.  And I share that commitment with my colleagues.  These results matter.  They matter in a way that is more important than my health, wealth and happiness.  And I will NOT stop until I manage to prove it.  I would be glad to do a demonstration - provided only that it is publicly and fairly arbitrated.  And frankly if that needs to be shown in a court of law or under the harsh light of a video then I'll do it - either option - AS REQUIRED.

I cannot talk about prior claims.  I only know our own.  And I look forward to showing this to you all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And TK - You seem to object to the number of words that I use in these protests of mine.  They are vastly outnumbered by yours.  And if I add those others by your 'co-conspirators' then they are a mere 'fraction' of your input.  Conservatively I'd say that as a group your contributions exceed mine by a factor of 6.  So.  Don't give me that about 'words'.  You're considerably more verbose.  And you have all of you occupied considerably more thread space than me. 

Rosie Pose
Taking the last ridiculous assertion first.... you are the champion of content-less verbiage, Rosmary, and many of my posts in this thread are, just like this one, refutations of your ridiculous assertions and lies about me. If YOU would stick to the topic of testing, this thread would be much shorter.... because you have only made a few posts on that topic.

Next.... your "colleagues" are the only ones on the planet who still believe in Mylow. HE EVEN ADMITTED ON MY YT VIDEO COMMENTS THAT I CAUGHT HIM IN THE ACT. And that comment from him is still there, if you want to go look for it.

And finally.... your first bogus point. You have claimed many times that the battery recharges or that something prevents it from discharging, which are nearly equivalent claims in this case. Take a look at the PESWiki article on you, maintained by your co-author, for just one example. It clearly states that your circuit recharges the battery. And of course that was EXACTLY the claim you made concerning the COP>17 circuit: battery recharging by the inductive spike. Which, by the way, I demonstrated and you did not. (I just didn't do it for the running battery, but an external one instead.)

"recharges the supply".......and the batteries are the supply, aren't they?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 12, 2012, 07:42:42 PM
Howdy members and guests,

I am very upset with the administration or Stefan Hartman that gave Rosemary three options on April 5, 2012.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) A specific time frame when Rosemary will do experiments without the function generator including battery draw down measurements and Stefan will give her a new thread at OU with moderation rights.

2) Stefan will lock the threads at OU and ban Rosemary from the forum then Rosemary chooses if Stefan deletes the threads and postings or everything can remain there intact.

3) Stefan locks the threads and post a message to go to Rosemary's BLOG site for all future discussion of Rosemary's circuits.

Her three (3) options he's tired of flame wars, no more on his forum .....

Rosemary lets him know by (?) 12 April how she decides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was to be done by April 12, 2012 and as you can see not a FUCKING thing has been done and Rosemary demeanor is the same avoiding questions, bloviating on her band of hiding juvenile expert collaborators, spitting in the faces of other reputable and knowledgeable Over Unity members with her vial explanations of electronic theory and the fraudulent incorrect cherry picked information supplied to the open source community.  >:(

To have the administrator "TURN AGAINST" every other member at Over Unity and to let Rosemary continue is beyond acceptable ..... and for what ?? To find the truth which has been done now countless times debunking Rosemary or is it visitor and member traffic on Stefans Forum to make money ??  :o

The option number one (1) given to Rosemary if any indication of the "PAST" testing and evaluation on the device with a past bogus video, wrong schematics, wrong information mixed with questionable in thousands of postings and authors names collaborators without input on the testing and evaluation done. We are all expected to take the information from the "SUPER TROLL" as correct without exception ...... RIGHT  >:(

Stefan Hartmann's e-mail address  hartiberlin@googlemail.com  what do you all think ?? Let it be known !!  >:(


FuzzyTomCat
 >:(
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 12, 2012, 07:58:33 PM
FTC,

I really don't see the need for the use of such language on this or any thread.  I also do not believe that it falls within acceptable guidelines for this fourm.

As MH stated several posts back, I too think everyone needs to cool off a bit.  All should be free to state their case or raise concerns and questions, but I see no need for emotional, angry, or vile disrespect towards anyone.

PW

 

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: The Boss on April 12, 2012, 08:05:35 PM
 
Where is the test ?
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 12, 2012, 08:17:51 PM
FTC,

I really don't see the need for the use of such language on this or any thread.  I also do not believe that it falls within acceptable guidelines for this fourm.

As MH stated several posts back, I too think everyone needs to cool off a bit.  All should be free to state their case or raise concerns and questions, but I see no need for emotional, angry, or vile disrespect towards anyone.

PW

PW, check the OU search http://www.overunity.com/search/ (http://www.overunity.com/search/) you will find around eleven pages of the word I used here at OU

After two (2) years of the slanderous remarks made about me from theft to throwing testing and evaluation of the COP>17 experimental device modified replication of mine over and over again by Rosemary without exception she deserves no respect from me, nor will I give her any.

Plain and simple shes a "FRAUD" and proven as such in five other forums over 7000 postings of hers later she has been banned from .... this is the last one available for her crap she dishes out. 

I think you should be checking out the forum history starting in 2009.  :o

Here's my data from the COP>17 testing and evaluation done  https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120 (https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460%21120)  twenty two (22) verifiable tests .... you have any PW ??

** Maybe a few 5 hour non stop videos recorded "LIVE" on my streaming broadcast channel ??
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646

FTC
 ???

** added
 
Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: picowatt on April 12, 2012, 10:57:39 PM
Rosemary,

I read a bit more of your posts.  They are difficult for me to read, as I typically just ignore or gloss over all posts that are of such "tones" on this thread.

As to "endorsing" a video from TK, I can only recall doing so with regard to his video demonstrating the ringing that can occur dependent on wire length (I believe it was a green wire).  You immediately jumped on it as somehow fraudulent.  I saw no attempts at "trickery", indeed, I have seen similar actions when making measurements.  A wire is not always "just a wire".

Regarding an AC scope setting, I never stated or implied that setting the 'scope to AC coupled would in any way affect or damage the 'scope.  You would, however, lose all your DC data and all 'scope captures performed in AC coupled mode would be missing a lot of data that can currently be visually extracted from your DC captures.

Your explanations regarding how to use or read a 'scope are, frankly, totally wrong.  We are not talking about COP, particle physics, electrons or whatever.  This relates only to how to use and read a 'scope, which is fully documented by users manuals and well known by those who have used all manner of 'scopes for many years.

As to "demanding" an answer, I did no such thing.  I asked my questions more that once as I thought my questions were being lost in the ensuing fray.  Time zones or not, it seems the continuing battle with other posters was more worthy of a response than a legitimate queston regarding your papers.  Even now, I do not demand an answer.  If someone on your team has a logical explanation regarding my concerns that you care to share, it would be much appreciated.  If not, that is fine as well.   

If you feel it is appropriate to tell me how to ask my questions properly, then I as well can suggest that a simple "that's interesting, I do not know the answer and will have my team look into it" from you might just as well have been appropriate.     

If you do not want your data examined, your papers read, your circuit replicated, then just say so.  I would, however, be even moreso puzzled as to the purpose of this thread.

You should find solace in the fact that, in the future, I will be reading and posting here less, as it is just to difficult to deal with all the non-tech related emotionalism on this thread.  I find it all very non-productive.

PW



Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 13, 2012, 12:43:31 AM
Okay,
Rosemary aggreed to do new tests on her circuit with the 555 timer being powered by the same battery pack
and will also do a battery charge status test.

Until then I will lock this thread and when she will come
back with her new data, I will open up a new thread for her.

As this thread went too controvers, it is just time to let new measurements speak fro themself.

So stay tuned.


Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
Post by: hartiberlin on April 13, 2012, 08:00:38 PM
Okay, Rosemary
agreed to do tests with such a circuit as attached.

She will also do battery charge tests before and after the experiment.

This will take some time and until then this thread remains closed.

P.S: This attached circuit diagramm was quickly hand drawn by me in a painting program and
just represents black boxes, surely the 555 timer circuit will have some pots
to control the settings..
and the L and C is just a lowpassfilter to filter out any spikes for the supply voltage
of the 555 timer, so the 555 timer gets a clean supply DC voltage of about 12 Volts.

Regards, Stefan.