another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[hartiberlin]

P.S.  for the battery capacity meter,
discharge the batteries before the experiment to about 50 % charge status
and then run your experiment on these batteries and then after the experiment
let the batteries sit for half an hour at least and then measure the battery charge status again.

If it will be then more then 90 % show this in a video.

Regards, Stefan.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosemary,...

Please quit posting your old measurement results when the function generator was used
as this was enough debunked already.

Regards, Stefan.

Hello again Stefan. 

Before we take this conversation any further please explain something.  WHAT OLD TEST?  The tests detailed in our papers?  Or the replication?

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Harti.  I THINK I'm beginning - FINALLY - to understand you.  The tests in our paper have NOT been DEBUNKED as you put it.  Or - IF THEY HAVE BEEN - then I am ENTIRELY UNAWARE OF THOSE ARGUMENTS.  I have read many arguments that CLAIM to have debunked this.  But they are unsubstantiated.  And if YOU are going to make such a damaging statement - then I propose that you have NOT considered our arguments - NOR read the paper.  And it seems that you are indeed, prepared to expose this technology of ours to some rather damaging and unjustified criticisms that will hardly progress this technology.  Which would be a shame.  The more so as a variation of this is about to be launched to the general public and - I believe they're applying for a patent.

NOW.  Here are the FACTS that are fully referenced in our paper. 

The Tektronix oscilloscope that we used has a dedicated plug, which has no GROUND on it.  That oscilloscope shows PRECISELY the same results as does our LE CROY.  Therefore - we have proof that the results on those oscilloscopes ARE NOT the result of 'grounding issues'.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer shows PRECISELY the same self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that this self-sustaining oscillation does not result from some vagary associated with the function generator.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer can itself be powered from the supply battery and resulting in the SAME self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that there is no 'extraneous' power introduced to the circuit.

The circuit can be replicated on a standard simulation software where precisely the same negative wattage is evident - which indicates that our own Inductive Laws provide for this anomaly.  Therefore - strictly - IT IS NOT an anomaly.

I'll deal with your posts - in detail - hereafter.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This post has been hopelessly corrupted with nested quotes.  I'll try this again in two posts.

Hi Rosemary,
as with the 555 timer it is a new circuit  you need to post a full circuit diagramms and the test protocol with the numbers you have taken during the tests.

The 555 timer was a variation ONLY to the DRIVER of the switch.  Our schematic is still PRECISELY as per our paper. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE was to the load.  We used a SOLDER IRON in one test - and we used two opposing banks of LED's in another.  While the results were interesting - and while both tests resulted in an INFINITE co-efficient of performance - neither test would 'cut it' for our paper - as the range of settings is too limited.  The function generator allows us MORE OPTIONS and it results in better heat dissipation.  They're ONLY value was precisely to determine whether there was some vagary introduced as a result of the function generator - that we could PUT THAT COMPLAINT TO BED.

How was the 555 timer powered ? A seperate battery or the same battery ?

BOTH.  And both were tested on INDEPENDENT batteries.  The solder iron was actually tested on our own bank of batteries as well. 

It makes no sense to mix up your old circuit with the function generator where you might had the grid  ground current loop problem and this new 555 timer circuit.

This has been fully addressed in my previous post.  Just to keep it in focus - here's that answer again.

The Tektronix oscilloscope that we used has a dedicated plug, which has no GROUND on it.  That oscilloscope shows PRECISELY the same results as does our LE CROY.  Therefore - we have proof that the results on those oscilloscopes ARE NOT the result of 'grounding issues'.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer shows PRECISELY the same self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that this self-sustaining oscillation does not result from some vagary associated with the function generator.

The circuit driven by a 555 timer can itself be powered from the supply battery and resulting in the SAME self-sustaining oscillation as does our tests from apparatus where the transistors are driven by a function generator.  Therefore - we have proof that there is no 'extraneous' power introduced to the circuit.

The circuit can be replicated on a standard simulation software where precisely the same negative wattage is evident - which indicates that our own Inductive Laws provide for this anomaly.  Therefore - strictly - IT IS NOT an anomaly.

continued/...

[poynt99]

Getting all charged up