another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[woopy]

Hi Rosemary

First of all, i wish you and your team ,a happy new and continous succesfull year  in your research and work.

Thank's for compliments, but i am not sure to merit them because i simply replicate your very clear shematic and try to understand what is going on.

I was impressed by the simplicity of this replication, which gave almost at once really  interesting results, (the negative current wave curve).Which is very encouraging

So now i am thinking of using battery to avoid the power supply which seems not able to manage the negative current (not made for this).

And also i will probably have to invest in a more powerfull Signal Gen because mine is really a basic  one.

And perhaps i can  make a 555 square pulse, when i know the frequency and dutycycle for my setup.

Anyway thank's for sharing


@ Stephan

yep man your are faster than light, a real neutrino

Thank's for posting my video link before i did it.

I will try your suggestion anyway, as usual.


good luck at all

Laurent

just as a remember    http://youtu.be/f9PL7ioHFWY

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Laurent,

Clearly this circuit is intriguing you.  Personally I'm delighted that you're doing these tests.  It's easily managed with a 555.  And you don't really need to apply a hefty power source.  Smaller outputs are easily managed - from smaller batteries.  If you use a 555 you'll be in the happy position of being able to apply a continuous negative signal at the gate. 

When it comes to 'fine tuning' you really need to do the math.  I have a friend who was telling me about an extraordinary little oscilloscope that he bought.  He's away at the moment but is back by the weekend.  I'll let you know more.  It may be more easily accessed in Europe (which I guess is where you're from).  And it's already relatively inexpensive here in South Africa.  I'll let you know.

So Woopy.  Well done and welcome on board.  Very pleased and flattered that you're working on this.

Kindest and best regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Poynty Point,

With reference to this statement of yours...

Once again, nice try Rosemary.

I explained that my exposure of your fallacies took no effort and that it was simply a waste of time.  What I HIGHLIGHTED was that your arguments against our claim are based on a slew of rather adventurous and illogical postulates that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to deny our claim.  Bearing in mind that you may have overlooked this post - let me schedule that list of your counter arguments -  AGAIN - lest you try very hard to disassociate yourself from them.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved 
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current 
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply 
.    In defiance of convention it is preferred to measure a negative voltage across a battery supply 
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow 
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over 
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols 
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative 
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy 
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery in order to manage a negative wattage 
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference 
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence 
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance. 




So.  In the light of this comment from you...

My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.

then my problems are manifold.  If you require me to apply YOUR LOGIC then I could, with a wide freedom of choice impose any result I choose on my data.  And while that may satisfy your agenda - it would hardly stand up to scrutiny in the academic world.  And that's where our paper is focused.  Alternatively, I could apply the required measurement protocols AS INDEED WE DO - and then I would not satisfy your qualification requirements for your prize.  You see for yourself.  I am between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

And as for this...

Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.

I AM MOST HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.  INDEED.  I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A FULL DEMONSTRATION OF OUR DEVICE.  But you see this Poynty Point?  What earthly good would there be in showing you the evidence when you seem more than prepared to DENY the evidence?  You have now given us to understand that you will impose your own math.  And it's not only in the miscount of the numbers of readers of this thread that you show a rather poor aptitude for this.  It's also grossly evidenced in those arguments of yours that you're trying so hard to make us all believe.

Help me out here Poynty.  We're trying to progress this technology.  It would be a crying shame to think that you could suppress this by simply denying our very easily demonstrable results.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

edited.  Added the word 'by'.   

[poynt99]

A question for Rosemary:

What polarity of voltage do you need to apply to the Gate (Gate to Source really) of an N-channel MOSFET to turn it ON?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

A question for Rosemary:

What polarity of voltage do you need to apply to the Gate (Gate to Source really) of an N-channel MOSFET to turn it ON?

.99

Hello Poynty Point,  yet again.

I'm rather hoping that the day will come when you'll follow my impeccable example and actually address your questions to me directly. I've just woken up - at the respectable hour of 6.30 am - which is the first for a LONG TIME.  Which means that if I factor in the three hours where I was awake - roughly between the hours of 1 and 3.45 - that I've slept a TOTAL of 10 hours or thereby.  Which is AMAZING.  So nice to tackle these keyboards with my fingers relaxed by an entire sufficiency of - SLEEP.  What a pleasure.  It's a state of consciousness that I can rarely indulge.

Now Poynty Point - I suspect talk of my insomnia may not be of interest to you.  I only reference it as it seems that I have taken a relatively long time to get back here.  So.  Back to your question.  Actually I'm not sure that I'm BRAVE enough to answer it at all.  I'm inclined to think that you're in the process of springing a 'trap' of sorts.   It seems LOADED with SUGGESTION.  There's the implicit  suggestion that I've boobed. Somewhere?  And for the life of me I can't think where?

I suppose, under the circumstances I'll just have to confess that I don't understand your terminology.  IS A MOSFET ACTUALLY SWITCHED ON when it opens or when it closes the circuit?   Clarify that and then I'll be able to point you to our part two of our paper - where I explain ALL in very clear terms. Meanwhile may I remind you that there's a couple of questions that I've also posed.  And unlike mine, they can't be explained by your 'paper' if such it is.  They ARE your paper.

Take care Poynty.  And if this is all being written while you're asleep - then I trust you sleep well.  You see this?  I'm setting an example all over the place.  Unlike you - I do not need to endorse my argument against you by also flaunting a disproportionate dislike of you.  I keep my feelings where they belong.  And then I just exercise COURTESY AND RESTRAINT.  It's easy when you get the hang of it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie


EDITED - the paragraphing. 
and changed the word 'spent' to 'slept'
Actually a whole lot of relatively minor things as well.  Too boring to list.