Rosemary:

This is extraneous to the atom and binds structures into molecules or into coalesced matter.

They are called chemical bonds, not zipons.

A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms that allows the formation of chemical substances that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electromagnetic force attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" such as covalent or ionic bonds and "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding.
Since opposite charges attract via a simple electromagnetic force, the negatively charged electrons that are orbiting the nucleus and the positively charged protons in the nucleus attract each other. Also, an electron positioned between two nuclei will be attracted to both of them. Thus, the most stable configuration of nuclei and electrons is one in which the electrons spend more time between nuclei, than anywhere else in space. These electrons cause the nuclei to be attracted to each other, and this attraction results in the bond. However, this assembly cannot collapse to a size dictated by the volumes of these individual particles. Due to the matter wave nature of electrons and their smaller mass, they occupy a much larger amount of volume compared with the nuclei, and this volume occupied by the electrons keeps the atomic nuclei relatively far apart, as compared with the size of the nuclei themselves.
In general, strong chemical bonding is associated with the sharing or transfer of electrons between the participating atoms. The atoms in molecules, crystals, metals and diatomic gases— indeed most of the physical environment around us— are held together by chemical bonds, which dictate the structure and the bulk properties of matter.

And there is no "fire" on the surface of the sun.
You have a long long long way to go baby.


MileHigh

Some recent quotes from Ainslie:

Two days ago she said

<blockquote>TK.  We do not claim over unity.  What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP.  This is using standard measurement protocols.  We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery.  </blockquote>

If you do not claim overunity you have no business applying for an OVERUNITY PRIZE. And if you are claiming that useful work can be done without depleting a power source, you are in fact claiming overunity.
In other words, you are lying again.

<blockquote>. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not

And now she says,

And I NEVER reference COP>INFINITY. 

Actually when you say your levels measured to exceed infinity... that is EXACTLY what you reference, liar.

AND

Actually we do not argue COP Infinity ever.   

Actually... you do, over and over, as in your own words above.

Rosemary, you are a liar. You contradict yourself over and over, you constantly misrepresent and lie about  my work, and this thread IS NO PLACE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS IGNORANT THEORIES.





</blockquote>

My dear TinselKoala

I can't answer this post of yours without also explaining the thesis.  And in terms of this 'preclusion'...

Rosemary, you are a liar. You contradict yourself over and over, you constantly misrepresent and lie about  my work, and this thread IS NO PLACE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS IGNORANT THEORIES.Some recent quotes from Ainslie:

Then I can't answer any of your points here...

Two days ago she said...If you do not claim overunity you have no business applying for an OVERUNITY PRIZE. And if you are claiming that useful work can be done without depleting a power source, you are in fact claiming overunity.
In other words, you are lying again.

And now she says,

Actually when you say your levels measured to exceed infinity... that is EXACTLY what you reference, liar.

Be reasonable. 

Rosie Posie

TK,

I have been looking at all available waveforms and I am a bit puzzled regarding the large AC excursions at the BAT+.  Particularly in your Tek video where you scoped right at the battery.  I believe that determination of the SLA/gel cell battery AC impedance is in order.  I would have thought that the battery would be a bit more capacitive in nature than is apparently indicated by the scope shots.  Possibly the interconnect inductance is higher than expected, or the batteries themselves do indeed have a high AC impedance.

You might consider doing a few tests to measure the battery's AC impedance.

As a preliminary test, with your circuit osc'ing scope each battery connector in the series string of batteries and note how much AC you see at each battery interconnect, particularly at the first battery terminal above ground.

As a second test, using an unconnected, isolated battery, you might try cap coupling your FG output to a battery and measure the FG open-circuit versus in-circuit voltage at 1.5MHz.  I would use an electrolytic paralleled by a ceramic for the cap coupling.  You can verify that the reactance of your paralleled cap is sufficiently low for the test by placing the cap directly across the FG output (set to 10VPP and 1.5MHz) and measuring across the cap with your scope, which should indicate that the cap is pretty much a short circuit at 1.5MHz by seeing very little signal on the scope.

To prevent any surges going into the FG, I would charge the cap before attaching the FG or short the FG terminals when the cap is first connected to the battery.  Once the cap is charged there will be no DC for the FG to deal with.

Place the FG and scope ground at BAT-.  Measure/set the FG open circuit VPP prior to attaching the FG to BAT+ and then measure the VPP at BAT+ with FG connected (thru the DC blocking cap above).  Assuming the FG is 50R, you can calculate AC impedance from the observed drop.  FG amplitude can be anything convenient, say 10VPP to start with.  If you need more drop, or for more convenience, add an additional series resistor in the FG output path.  You can then alternately probe both sides of the added resistor to get your Vdrop.  Keep all leads as short as possible to reduce lead inductance. 

Of course, all of the above is just a suggestion...

PW






 

What the NERDs failed to do was investigate that "COP infinity" negative "vv" value any further.  You collectively hit an intellectual wall and could go no further.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have investigated more thoroughly.  From detailed waveform analysis - to full on power integration - as parts of the cycle - for the full cycle - and for multiple cycles.  We've tested with a function generator and with a 555 switch.  We've applied it with a continual negative impulse at the gate - and we've tested it on multiple loads.

If your DSO had the bandwidth, you could have looked at the individual oscillation waveforms at 2 MHz.  You could have looked at  the battery "voltage" waveform and the current sensing resistor waveform and deduced precisely when and how much power was going to the load and precisely when and how much power was being returned from the load.  Then you could have examined these numbers and analyzed the situation to see if they really made sense.

EXACTLY what we do in full on power integration.

For example, when you were measuring a phase when power was being returned to the battery, what was the battery voltage at that time?  Was it artificially high?  If yes, was that the true battery voltage?  These are issues that you never even explored.

The waveform as it relates to the batteries' chemical interaction have been omitted.  And it most certainly IS required.  But that would need to be done by chemists.  We do not know if the battery is ever recharged.  What we DO know is that the advantage to that system is irrespective of the benefit to the supply source.  It merits investigation simply by itself.  Again.  It makes no earthly sense to be left with a negative wattage. That needs explaining - no matter what is happening at the battery.  Surely you see this? 

You never actually tried to understand what was going on over an individual cycle and to explain exactly how you got a negative number.

This is NOT true.  Read our 2nd paper.

You never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.

There is only one way to measure power delivered and power dissipated.  Well established measurement protocols.  They can't be improved on.

As TK said, you all got excited about seeing a negative number in a little box.

Both you and he would need to say this.  It suits your argument.  But it is not the 'real truth' as you put it MileHigh.

You may be going through yet another "smug phase" but we all know how this story is really going to end.

What SMUG phase?  I most certainly am NOT SMUG.  About what?  For God's sake?  And IF this does not merit a full investigation which is ALL that we've motivated in our paper - then I will, indeed, be deeply disappointed. 

Regards,
Rosie Posie

@PW:

Thank you for your suggestions. Wouldn't it be more interesting, though, if RA did those things FIRST? I mean, the way this usually works is that the CLAIMANT responds to suggestions for tests from those who are trying to reproduce the effects of the claimant. In this case.... I have already reproduced everything that the claimant has actually shown, without having any cooperation from the claimant, and in fact I've been working around the many obstacles put in place by the claimant.

Now we have the claimant ranting and raving, demanding that I do things or answer questions.... when she herself has not addressed any of the important issues. Note the pattern in the claimant's posts: I make a point of difficulty or inconsistency in the NERD reports. I even illustrate the point with a video demonstration. The claimant returns with post after post of irrelevancies, misrepresentations and outright lies about what I show and covers up the issues completely, until pages go by and the issue of importance isn't addressed. But I don't forget about them. Here are just a few which have been buried by this technique of the claimant.


1. It is not possible to get a simple 555 timer circuit powered by the main batteries to produce a negative-going gate drive impulse--- which must be more negative than the most negative pole of the main batteries. Some solution -- like the one I have used -- must be found for this problem.

2. The impedance values given for the NERD current viewing resistors are implausible and need to be repeated in a way that is unequivocal--- like I have shown. Measure some known inductances and show that the measurement agrees with their known values, then measure the shunt in the same manner.

3. A claim of COP > INFINITY has indeed been made several times by the claimant in her own words, as I have shown REPEATEDLY. Does she wish now to withdraw that claim? I think that would be a good idea. Further, this claim is also equivalent to a claim of "overunity" performance. Yet she stated yesterday that she DOES NOT CLAIM OVERUNITY.
Fine.... I will expect to see a formal withdrawal of the Prize Claim, as well as some effort on her part to clear up all the statements on the internet where she DOES claim COP>INFINITY and overunity performance. But then I expect to win the lottery someday too.

4. PW's queries about the possibly blown mosfet are important and have not been answered adequately by the claimant. The correct way to answer PW's points is to GET A KNOWN GOOD MOSFET, demonstrate that it is good, and then make the waveforms shown on the scope again. This would take 5 minutes to do, and is something like what I do all the time. Many times, someone has asked me a legitimate question or made a suggestion for a test or variation, and by the next day, sometimes within the hour, I make a video showing the results.  The claimant in this case has produced NO NEW DATA OR TESTING since over a year ago, yet there are many questions that could be cleared up in moments, with a cooperative attitude and a video camera.

5. The claimant constantly misrepresents and mischaracterises my work, lying about it even. Examples of this are on every page of this thread where the claimant has posted, especially in the last few days. One of my videos of the CVR trace was even commented on by the claimant when it was first posted.... and yet now the claimant, lying once again, pretends that they are new. Most of the "questions" from the claimant have to do with her own misrepresentations and lies about my work... witness all the accusations and ranting about "10 ohm" resistors yesterday when I said no such thing in the first place.

And of course there are many more similar points.

Once again, I say that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in the same testing. This is my claim: If the NERD device is "overunity" then TB is too, by the same measurement methods and analyses. Is this a claim of "debunking" or "replication"? Tar Baby has already done everything that the claimant's device has ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN to do. It is time for the CLAIMANT to stop obfuscating, and start demonstrating.  Let the claimant show that her device does something differently from Tar Baby.

If the claimant wishes to complain about what I'm doing with Tar Baby, the correct AND ONLY way to do it will be to show the NERD device doing something different than Tar Baby when tested in the same way. I have illustrated MANY possible tests and subtests.

One that I would like to see right now is a confirmation of the 110 nanoHenry value cited for the inductance of the claimant's 4 ordinary 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistors in parallel.... because my resistors of the exact same type measure 7 microHenry each. This is done on a meter that measures a known 1 microHenry inductor as 1 microHenry and a 1.5 millHenry inductor as 1.5 millHenry. In other words, the meter I used is accurate in the range used and with the measurement method I used, and I demonstrate  this for anyone to see, try for themselves and refute if they find something different.  The claimant claims that the shunt inductance of NERD is 110 nanoHenry. I question this because of readings I have made and I've asked the simple thing: for the readings to be repeated in an unequivocal manner. What is the response from the claimant? Post after post talking about some "10 ohm" resistors in her imagination and not a single responsive and substantive response. "Here's the part number of the special non-inductive resistors that look just like ordinary power resistors, and here's a video showing us measuring them on our fancy inductance meter, and here's the meter measuring a known inductance so you'll know the meter is being used correctly." That is the kind of response that a cooperative claimant would make, and that is the kind of response that I myself have made, many times. Checkable references, real data, repeatable tests, full disclosure.... these things are not forthcoming from the present claimant.

A cooperative claimant would refute me with FACTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS in an afternoon. But all the present claimant can do is... claim. And this is just a single example of a subtest where Tar Baby and NERD could be compared.... if there was something that Tar Baby could be compared to.

I, as a builder and tester of claims, do not have to address random insinuating questions that the claimant tosses at me, I don't have to explain where I get my test equipment and I don't have to conform to anyone's schedule ... because I am not making extraordinary claims and I'm not applying for any monetary prizes based on my claims. IF I WERE.... then I would and SHOULD be expected to answer these kinds of questions and give these explanations. But of course the present claimant will not cooperate and instead wants to obstruct. Once again, my "claim" is that Tar Baby performs just like the claimant's device in all significant respects. If the claimant wishes to demonstrate otherwise.... that is up to the claimant, and the longer she delays the worse things look for her claims. I have demonstrated that Tar Baby does do everything that the claimant's device has actually been shown to do. It is LONG PAST time for the claimant to show that her device does something that Tar Baby cannot: heat a load without discharging its batteries.

At the beginning of this thread I stated what it was about and what my goals and purposes are. When the thread was reopened I stated the conditions under which the claimant was welcome to post here. Among those conditions was that no claims be made WITHOUT EVIDENCE, references, data, checkable and external. Another condition was that the claimant stop misrepresenting and lying about my work. Yet the claimant has chosen not to respect these simple and reasonable conditions and has continued with her campaign of insult, non-cooperation and active hindrance of the work going on here, while at the same time making NO progress at all towards her own testing. It would take three days to determine unequivocally whether her batteries are discharging.... in other words it could have been done several times already, had she only stopped talking and started working.

This is not the place to discuss the "theories" of RA. This is a thread about testing the Tar Baby and showing that it performs like the NERD device or doesn't. I've shown many tests and variations and I've shown that there are discrepancies in the data from the NERD device that I am comparing to. The correct way to deal with these is for the claimant to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong, if I am, by showing comparable tests and checkable, repeatable data. More talk, more claims without evidence, and especially reference to any "theory" or conjecture, is out of place and isn't helpful.

Let's see a simple photograph of one of the NERD resistors hooked up to an inductance meter reading 500 nanoHenry or less as the value, and another with the meter reading a known inductance correctly. For example.  I've shown a reliable reading of 7 microHenry on an apparently identical resistor, which calls into question yet another bit of data reported by the NERDs. This issue could be cleared up in moments.... and would be.... if there only were a cooperative and knowledgeable and skilful claimant involved. Instead the claimant bloviates for pages, insults my equipment, makes innuendoes and aspersions, and NEVER addresses the issue other than to resort to an appeal to authority and more claims without evidence.

Imagine, if you will, a simple circuit. One twelve volt battery, a black box (containing a 555 timer and some other cheap parts) and a pair of output wires. Call this a FG if you like, since it's set to produce a square wave of period one second, going positive and negative five volts, just like a real FG powering some LEDs in the demo I showed concerning FG polarity. (This could even be arranged by a simple relay in the black box and the Secret of DPDT for polarity reversal.)

Now, take your isolated-ground oscilloscope and hook one channel to the battery and the other channel to a "shunt" in one of the output wires going to your LED antiparallel pair. Turn the system on. What do you see?
You see a battery voltage that is always positive, and you see a current trace that goes positive (forward) for half a second, then negative (backward) for half a second. Multiply these two traces together and what do you get? An instantaneous power curve, of course... don't you? Integrate that curve... and what do you get? Does the result of the integration indicate the power being used (dissipated) to light up the LEDs ?

I leave the answer, and the consideration of the implications, to the reader.