Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 486596
  • *Total Topics: 14312
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 157
  • *Total: 163

Facebook

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 533656 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #690 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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #691 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.


Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #692 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.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #693 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


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #694 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.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #694 on: February 28, 2012, 01:50:18 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #695 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.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #696 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.

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #696 on: February 28, 2012, 04:38:20 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #697 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

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #698 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

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #699 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'.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 12:59:50 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #699 on: February 28, 2012, 09:33:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #700 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

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #701 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



Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #702 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.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #703 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


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #704 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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #704 on: February 28, 2012, 03:52:13 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: