another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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???   

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[MileHigh]

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[TinselKoala]

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.....