another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[AbbaRue]

@ 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!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[AbbaRue]

Wow! 4 new posts in the time it took me to write the one I just posted.
Quite busy here tonight! 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[fuzzytomcat]

Rosemary,Let me be direct here ....

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/

IS THIS THE SCHEMATIC DATED 12 MARCH 2011

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96508/



YES OR  NO  ??



Fuzzy