another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[fuzzytomcat]

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

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

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

[MileHigh]

An Easter egg for TK: