another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - another LONG reply.  But it deserves no less.   I'll split the posts.  Maybe that'll help.  LOL

A brief summary of my results so far:
I built the circuit using 2n7000 mosfets and some random inductances for the load, and a low-voltage battery pack instead of Rosemary's large one. I was interested only in waveforms, not heating of the load. I found that I could easily produce waveforms of oscillations that look identical to those shown in Rosemary's demonstration video, same magnitude and everything, but at lower _baseline_ voltages due to my smaller battery pack.

Not sure what TK means.  Our oscillations are ONLY generated on the negative triggering - and their voltages, measured across the battery FAR exceed the battery voltages.  TK's barely managed one volt each at either peak and on either side of the battery base line.

These oscillations occurred only when FGs were used to switch or bias the mosfets, even using DC from the F-43 FG.

'bias'?... Is he referring to the MOSFETs?  And one would actually expect the MOSFETs to 'switch' with an applied signal.  No surprises there.  Surely?

No oscillations occurred when the mosfets were biased negatively or positively with DC from a battery or a regulated PS.

We DO see an oscillation with an applied DC from a battery operated 555.  And. We do NOT see an oscillation from the function generator when the battery supply is disconnected.  The signal probe and the scope probes appear to be in a coincident position on the circuit to TK's.  And, incidentally.  When the two probes are connected - but the battery is still disconnected - as shown on his video - then one wonders how signal voltage reduces?  I would have thought that can only happen when and if there's an applied load. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I couldn't get back here for the last half hour or so.  Something's seriously wrong with Harti's system.  Anyway.  Here's the next installment.

The oscillations followed the FG's output in phase but could be shifted 180 degrees by changing the DC offset of the FG's output. The oscillations were indeed "robust" and "continuous"... as long as the FG was used to switch the mosfets.

INDEED.  One would EXPECT an applied signal would be required.  I would have thought?

Both mosfets heat up while the FG is used... regardless of whether the battery pack is used.

Again.  We cannot get any kind of oscillation while the battery is disconnected.  I’m beginning to suspect that there’s some hidden connection there. Probably not intended.  LOL.

LEDs in the circuit could be made to light up at various offset settings, but only with both the FG and the 3v battery pack in the circuit

Again.  Surely one would hardly expect the LED's to light if there was no circuit path provided?  Isn't that self-evident? 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

and the next/...

-- the battery pack is needed to complete the circuit thru the LEDs, but the power to light them is coming from the FG.

That's assumed.  Not proved.  We have used a dual rail of LED's  in series with the battery supply.  In other words they could pick up the power in either direction.  Only one rail lights and it  stays lit continuously during the oscillation phase.

A 100 pF capacitor in series with the positive FG lead

Not sure what is meant by a 'postive FG lead'?  Hopefully he'll explain this.  In due course.  And. If one applies a cap in series with the signal output - if that's what he's referring to - wouldn't that completely obviate the applied signal? 

Which means that...

completely eliminates the oscillation and the lighting of the LEDs while still allowing a nice square wave to appear on the output at my operating frequency of 1 kHz.

…it would most certainly prevent the applied signal - that 'nice square wave' from reaching the circuit.  That's assuming that this is the 'nice square wave' that he's referring to.  This whole para is a bit vague.

The capacitor of course _Blocks the DC Current_ flowing through the FG while allowing the +/- square wave pulses to get through and drive the gates. This radically reduced the drawdown in the FG's output voltage--- I can use 40 V p-p if I like --- and eliminated the LED lighting while preserving the basic output waveform, minus the superposed oscillations. And the mosfets appear to run cooler.

I think what he's trying to say is that his signal at the function generators persists?  Golly.  Why should he expect otherwise?  He's measuring an applied signal.  LOL.  If the MOSFETs are cool - then it's because they're not being triggered.  I'd be surprised if he found anything else. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

 

My conclusion is that the oscillations shown in Rosemary's video are probably caused by the same effect as those I am seeing, and that the Function Generator itself is providing substantial power to Rosemary's load in her demonstration.

Not an entirely scientific conclusion.  That use of the word 'PROBABLY'?  I would have thought that it's a bit vague.  It's easy to test the output.  Just put a small shunt there and check the current.  LOL.  More to the point - just measure the output voltage shown at the signal.  Not need to thumb suck.  Just measure it. I would have thought?

Also, since she and her team have apparently grossly overstated the energy required to heat up her water.....

We've never OVERSTATED this.  How can we?  Surely?  We all know EXACTLY how much energy it takes to heat water.  LOL I'm not at all sure what he's trying to imply?  Strangely full of innuendo and no substance.  Is this a propagandising trick?  I certainly hope not.  I think he needs to explain this.  Whatever next? 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

this is the last one.  I actually made them all too small.  But rather err in that direction.  Sorry guys.

the fact that the batteries don't run down detectably isn't surprising at all... nor is it indication of "infinite COP" or any other excess energy claim.

Again.  That's ASSUMPTION.  We'd prefer to test this under well defined experimental conditions.  Wouldn't that be more in keeping with science.  Or is TK rather hoping that his  'probability' assessments as sufficient compensation for experimental evidence or scientific fact?  Surely not?

Oh... wait... I forgot. I used the wrong mosfets. The magic IRFPG50 must be used. Right? Well, then why do my oscillations look identical to those in Rosie's video?

I'm delighted to see that TK has FINALLY realised this. I've been telling people this since FOREVER.  But with the caveat that they use a FET with a body diode - or that they apply one - in the absence of this.

(The 2n7000 does have an internal body diode effect just like the bigger cousin, it just isn't normally shown on the diagram of the 2n7000.

There you go.  It’s like I’ve been saying. REPEATEDLY. LOL.  On this point, AT LEAST it seems that TK's assessment and our own - COINCIDE.  That’s 1 more than nothing.  Which is a hundred percent better. What a pleasure. 

Kindest regards
Rosie