another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[hartiberlin]

Harti - I have answered this.  But let me try this again.
We most certainly DID do that test.  It was required to counter the claim that the use of the function generator was somehow responsible for that oscillation and/or it's apparent benefits.  We most certainly did NOT need to reference an alternate schematic.  It's EXACTLY the same schematic as our detailed in our paper which I added to my previous post to you.  The ONLY DIFFERENCE IS that the signal generator is now a 555 switch.  And the work load RL1 was a battery powered solder iron.   



Regards
Rosemary

What where the components connected to the 555 chip ?

What RC values and frequency was set ?

You really need a circuit diagram and a measurement protocol and
a battery status test before and after the test run...

Again, this all was not provided and is still missing and you did not send me any circuit digramm
which shows how the 555 chip and R and C components was used in there...

Get your facts straight and do a scientific measurement with protocolled test runs
and post the COMPLETE circuit diagramm and the frequencies you used, etc...

The most import thing is the battery status test that you also did not do.

Regards, Stefan.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What where the components connected to the 555 chip ?

What RC values and frequency was set ?

You really need a circuit diagram and a measurement protocol and
a battery status test before and after the test run...

Again, this all was not provided and is still missing and you did not send me any circuit digramm
which shows how the 555 chip and R and C components was used in there...

Get your facts straight and do a scientific measurement with protocolled test runs
and post the COMPLETE circuit diagramm and the frequencies you used, etc...

These points have been answered. 

The most import thing is the battery status test that you also did not do.

I agree that this is the most important thing.  But it can only be answered CONCLUSIVELY by doing a comparative analysis of the battery draw down tests.  I am happy to engage.  But it will cost both time and money.  Therefore to do this test we would need some unequivocal undertaking that these tests will be considered CONCLUSIVE.  That means that more than 1 and not less than 2 academic experts need to confirm the protocols for that test.  I can't get this.  Can you?  If you manage it - then we will GLADLY do that test.  It is the ONLY CONCLUSIVE TEST that I know of to prove that our claim results in any kind of energy efficiency.

Regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing, seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?


In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...


So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?
A good comparison will be:


1) Take two same and charged battery.
2) Running one circuit directly...
3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...
4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.
5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!
6) If not, time to try another things...
7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...
8 ) END.


Regards, SRM.

[poynt99]

SRM,

Rosemary won't perform that test (or ANY for that matter) for any number of excuses, we've seen many.

Anyone making a wild claim like hers ought to have the sense of mind to validate their claim on their own by at least one other method. But alas, Rosemary has not provided corroborating data from an additional test of any sort.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Schubert,

In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing,

Interestingly - it sort of performs as Poynty claimed it would - that there is ALWAYS a path for the battery through either Q1 or Q2's gate to source.  That's where the diagram errs - or as Poynty puts it - 'errors'.  Q2 has no source leg for the discharge except through Q1's Gate.  And Q1's gate has an applied negative signal that would repel any discharge from the battery.  Can you model that too Schubert?  It would be most interesting - but calls for an 'unconventional' MOSFET diagram.  I'll post the schematic again.  Q2 is on the left Q1 on the right.

seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?

No.  It's only required that there's a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of Q1.  It works fine to generate that oscillation.  Which is extraordinary - because under these conditions - ie with the use of just one FET with ONLY an applied negative signal - then the battery is unarguably NOT delivering any energy.  The question then is HOW does the positive half of each oscillation develop?

In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...

EXACTLY.  Which is why we claim an anomaly.  We get MORE energy returned to the supply than delivered.  AND we've got some pretty hefty heat signatures over the workstation - RL1.

So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?

I'm well aware of Bedini's claims.  Our's is ONLY different in that we've got this on a solid state system - with heat dissipated rather than motors.  It seems that the 'recharge' to the battery is still the same.  Not sure because I've never tested this on motors.

1) Take two same and charged battery.2) Running one circuit directly...3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!6) If not, time to try another things...7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...8 ) END.

This is PRECISELY the battery draw down test that I keep proposing to Poynty.  I'll do this gladly.  But I would need to know that I'm not wasting my time when I run this test.  The last thing any of us want is another DEBATE.  It needs to be acknowledged that this will be FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  And to get it there - we'd need the test parameters and protocols defined by an academic expert.  Poynty et al do not have the required expertise - unfortunately.  Not that they're not experts.  They possibly are.  But they're not experts in Power Engineering - which is what's required to get these results acknowledged.   

Let me know if you can vary that design against this diagram that I'm attaching Schubert.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary