another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Cool stuff, this method work with a modified sine-wave inverter ?
(I need to measure the input power from the DC side for my resonant amplification experiment: all measure will be in DC to avoid error...)
Can I use it for a rectified unfiltered DC OUPUT ?


Edit: I have also a scope (DSO 2090) to get REAL power including AC (distorted dephased sine wave of course), I can use the Math function ChannelA mean * ChannelB mean ?

[poynt99]

Cool stuff, this method work with a modified sine-wave inverter ?
(I need to measure the input power from the DC side for my resonant amplification experiment: all measure will be in DC to avoid error...)
Can I use it for a rectified unfiltered DC OUTPUT ?

Hi Schubert.

Yes I believe it will also work when using a rectified unfiltered output. To confirm, I will do a simulation on it and see. The worst case scenario if this did not work, would be to utilize some large filtering caps on the rectified output. But again, I don't think it will be necessary. Are you using a CSR as well?

.99

[poynt99]

What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE AND KINDLY GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

My dear Poynty Point.  Where EXACTLY have you proved that our measurements are erroneous?  And shouldn't you WARN Schubert that his test has nothing to do with our circuit?  And even less to do with proving over unity?  Is he aware of your agenda?  And shouldn't you and he and whoever else wants to - continue to engage on your revived thread?  I'm not sure that this new venture into a new misdirection is going to help anyone other than you and your 'friends'.

As I see it I've gone to some considerable lengths to PROVE that your arguments are neither logical nor scientific.  I can happily go through all those arguments again.  I see NO evidence of that you've disproved anything at all.  On the contrary you have NOT been able to counter a single argument.  And you MOST CERTAINLY are required to DISPROVE THOSE ARGUMENTS.

Regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Actually - this post of yours should be framed - as a sample of what happens when you run out of argument and find yourself with a mouthful of teeth.  Anyway Poynty - here's my answer.  BTW I've just seen the frightening length of it.  I'll need to split these posts AGAIN. 

What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I believe I'm claiming a prize that you've got on offer - is what I'm going on about.

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

I'd be glad to pretend to believe you - if it helps at all.  But the evidence rather speaks against this.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

That's rich.  We've had a parade of the most atrocious measurement analysis applied to utterly unscientific assumptions - and you say that YOU'RE embarrassed.  You should be.  It's disgraceful.  I'll take the trouble to list them ALL in a separate post.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

The ONLY thing in science that can be considered nonsense - must FIRST be based on the lack of experimental evidence.  We have an ENORMOUS amount of evidence.

edited.  Took out the word 'scientific'