another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[hartiberlin]

Harti,

Again.  The circuit is per out schematic included in our paper.  I'll see if I can download again.  The differences are ONLY in the applied signal.  Not from a function generator - but a 555.  And there is only 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2.   Do you get it yet?  If not, then let me know.  If you want a circuit diagram of a 555 - there are many available on the internet.  They all work - with varying levels of efficiency.  THEN.  Where you see 'load' RL1 - just picture - in your mind's eye - that we've got a battery operated solder iron in place of the element resistor that we reference in our paper.  And OBVIOUSLY the shunt resistor.  This is still 0.25 Ohms ... I think.  Actually - it may have been 0.2 Ohms.  Can't actually remember. 

I'm not sure that I ever did download the waveforms.  And I'm not about to wade through those multiple pages of 'flamed' threads to find them.  I do, however, have some downloads where this was tested from our own batteries.  I'll try and find them.   

About our papers.  I have sent you copies of these per email.  Have you lost these?  If so, again.  Let me know.  I'll send them again for your private perusal.  I've been advised NOT to publish these here until such time as they're published as reviewed papers.  Which is immanent. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary.
it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer,
otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your
circuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.

Also your 2 PDF files did not contain any 555 circuit, just your old outdated circuit with the
function generator and the ground loop and measurement problems...

Also no battery status tests .

For a real test you need to see the status of your batteries before and after the tests....


So try to run these tests, document them in detail and then come back here...
all other postings without doing new tests are just wasted time...

Did you yet met GotoLuc in South Africa ?
Maybe he can help you setup the measurements the right way.
He also knows how to post it to youtube.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Harti - I have answered this.  But let me try this again.

Rosemary.
it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer, otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your circuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.

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.   

It seems that no matter WHAT I write the answer is ignored.  Could I impose on you to actually READ this reply Stefan?  We ONLY included a REFERENCE to that test - AS REQUIRED - so that anyone reading our papers could duplicate the test - as required.  Then they too will see the same oscillation and the same benefits.  Since that 555 test is NOT the experiment under review it does not require a separate schematic.

Now.  Perhaps I can get back to my intentions in posting here.  I revived this thread in order to challenge Poynt.99 and Professor Steven E Jones - to claim their prizes for proof of over unity.  I have offered an entirely CONCLUSIVE TEST for their consideration - by defining a comparative battery draw down test or our test apparatus vs a control.  That is all that's needed.  AND then INDEED - we would need to do a very public 3rd test to show that the 555 switched circuit DOES NOT ADD ENERGY to the circuit.  But that's the ONLY context in which it would be needed to this test.

Believe it or not - these 40 odd pages of thread are ONLY the argument that we HAVE A VALID CLAIM FOR THOSE PRIZES.  And this, for some reason is DENIED?  SO.  In order to put ALL ARGUMENTS TO BED - I've proposed that we run these final and DEFINITIVE TESTS.  I am more than happy to do this.  But it will take some time.  And it will involve me in some expense.  Therefore, I need to KNOW that IF I run these tests - IF we can show that the batteries under test conditions have lost NO CHARGE AT ALL - while the batteries under a control - DISCHARGE ALL THEIR ENERGY - then we will have proved our claim. 

But I will not do ANY more testing - until such time as this is conceded as being CONCLUSIVE PROOF and that this opinion is shared with at least two academic experts.  That way - my time and money is NOT wasted.  Because, IF a couple of academics endorse this as conclusive proof and IF I run these tests under the required supervision - then there will never again be any academic or any person anywhere at all who would be able to JUSTIFY denying this claim.  And that would be MOST desirable.

I am TIRED of arguing the merits of our claim.  I want to PROVE IT.

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And MileHigh - this is reference to the balance of your post.

The test I proposed is not designed to "suggest under unity."  That's ridiculous, it's designed to simply show the truth

Truth?  Golly.  I rather suspect that what you're proposing is that we do a test that is entirely irrelevant to our claim - in the hopes of thereby disproving our claim.  Which means that the term 'truth' as applied by you - is only what you truly hope will be the result.

Now, the simple fact is that I know for certain that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease after ten seconds.  If your "COP infinity" fantasy is true, then the voltage on the capacitor will increase after ten seconds.

WOW.  This is when that 'truth' becomes relative to - a 'kissing cousin of' pure fantasy.  To the best of my knowledge there is no means by which a capacitor can INCREASE it's voltage when it's disconnected from a supply.  And I have been assured that MOST capacitors are subject to 'leakage' when they're disconnected. 

So what are you afraid of Rosemary?  In theory, my proposed test will either confirm or deny that your fantasy is true and it will only take 10 seconds to do so.

I'm only 'afraid' that you've missed the point of our paper.  Nothing new here.

Don't bother mentioning that you would have to double-check this first with "academic experts."  The test is real so don't try some amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness.  Don't hide under that

Nothing to do with amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness.  Everything to do with keeping tests within the context of our claim.

-/...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My test will take 10 seconds.  The comparative battery draw-down test is a complicated and difficult to do affair that will take days and days to do properly and will not necessarily be conclusive.  The battery draw-down test will easily generate another 50 pages worth of debate.  I have no confidence that you or anyone on your team could do the tests properly and document the tests properly.  It's just another quagmire waiting to happen.  It's so easy to see that coming.

I would DEPEND on the stipulated test parameters approved by EXPERTS.  And unlike your test which only goes to the measure of capacitor leakage - our test would be CONCLUSIVE of benefit to our application.

All that you need to do is double check your power measurements that were done with the DSO.  The scientific method calls for double-checking measurements with an alternative method, especially when the first round of measurements are suspicious, as yours clearly are.  The capacitor test will do that for you in 10 seconds and it has millions of times more resolution than the DSO.  This is a simple fact.

The 'first round' of tests are over 100 independent tests strong - each showing an INFINITE co-efficient of performance.  The capacitor test is only a test on the capacitor's ability to retain charge - OR NOT.  Can't see the relevance.

But after seeing your postings yesterday, one thing is abundantly clear:  Because you have no background in electronics and you still can barely express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy, you have almost no capacity whatsoever to learn and retain material that has been taught to you multiple times.  Knowledge rolls off your back and out of your brain like water rolls off the clean and oiled feathers of a duck.  So there is just no point, you are a blank slate that repeatedly blanks itself out over time.

It continually intrigues me that with my evident lack of training - my alarming and profound lack of intelligence - and the vacuity of my mind - that I am nonetheless able to counter every single argument put forward by all you 'nay sayers' - with comparative ease and with surprisingly adequate articulation.  Which only goes to show that it's possibly preferred to be quite as stupid as I clearly am.  In any event.  I don't mind it one little bit.

Hence it's time to throw the towel in and listen to music instead.

If this is the advice you're giving yourself - far be it from me to dissuade you.  PLEASE.  Feel free. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

You're still dodging, Rosie. Perhaps you simply do not understand the issue.

Let's break it down. Is this or is this not a correct statement? THAT is a YES or NO question. It only takes a single word to answer it.

We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Is a Joule = 1 Watt per second? THAT is also a YES or NO question. It only takes a single word to answer it.

Just answer that much, for goodness sake.