another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and guests,

Here is the beginning of the thread ..... PAGE 1 ..... POST 1 ..... by Rosemary Ainslie.

Dear all,

I've been obliged to 'start a new topic' as it seems that every single thread where I subscribed - has been flamed to death and locked.  The good news is that they have not been deleted.

And there's more good news.  You guys have all called for us to run our batteries to the duration.  That experiment would have taken too long and the test itself too expensive to monitor.

However.  The guys have gone about this differently.  They flattened 3 of our batteries by running lights off them.  When the lights 'went out' was when the batteries were considered flat which was at 10.05 volts or thereby.  Immediately thereafter they ran our resistor element on our usual test.  Not only did we get the same level of oscillation but precisely the same level of heat dissipated - related to that oscillation.  Which was proof that the energy in that oscillation is indeed NOT coming from the battery supply.

We have long argued that the battery is a passive component in the circuit.  I'll give a link to that paper as soon as I've found it and presuming that this post is allowed.  Here's hoping.

This is quite exciting.  It puts paid to the problems associated with flat batteries.  And more to the point - it's eloquent proof that the voltage from the battery is used without any attendant supply of current flow. 

And for those who are interested - we are still awaiting word from our editor as to whether or not that paper is to be published.  Fingers still crossed and we're all still busy spreading the news.



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here's the link to the second part of the two part paper - which deals with the thesis that requires this effect.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/08/140-heres-second-paper.html

Rosemary's Quotes -
However.  The guys have gone about this differently.  They flattened 3 of our batteries by running lights off them.  When the lights 'went out' was when the batteries were considered flat which was at 10.05 volts or thereby.  Immediately thereafter they ran our resistor element on our usual test.  Not only did we get the same level of oscillation but precisely the same level of heat dissipated - related to that oscillation.  Which was proof that the energy in that oscillation is indeed NOT coming from the battery supply.


It puts paid to the problems associated with flat batteries.  And more to the point - it's eloquent proof that the voltage from the battery is used without any attendant supply of current flow. 




I think this would be a "peachy" test for Rosemary to repeat for us all !! It sounds so simple to do .... even with "DEAD" batteries !! 


Cheers,
FTC

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

In looking through your one of your reports again and seeing the scope shots of the battery voltage it's pretty shocking to see how much variation there is in the battery voltage.  Poynt discussed this with you many times but I don't think he ever got through to you.

Standard practice is to use capacitors to help smooth out the power supply voltage especially when you are dealing with switching circuits.  That means were the power came into your pegboard you should have had a large capacitor, perhaps 10,000 uF directly across where the battery connections are made to the pegboard.  You then connect perhaps two more capacitors across the power entry point (i.e.; in parallel with the 10,000 uF capacitor), say a 1000 uF and a 10 uF capacitor.

Then you take your oscilloscope probe and check to see if the capacitors are doing a decent job to stabilize the battery voltage while the circuit is running.  If there was someone in your lab that saw that you were making this power switching circuit and saw the distance between your battery bank and the board, they should have said something.  If really appears that you were left to your own devices or were working with a few students that didn't know any better or they were disinterested.

Without some kind of power decoupling you got those nightmarish voltage swings.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

In looking through your one of your reports again and seeing the scope shots of the battery voltage it's pretty shocking to see how much variation there is in the battery voltage.  Poynt discussed this with you many times but I don't think he ever got through to you.

Standard practice is to use capacitors to help smooth out the power supply voltage especially when you are dealing with switching circuits.  That means were the power came into your pegboard you should have had a large capacitor, perhaps 10,000 uF directly across where the battery connections are made to the pegboard.  You then connect perhaps two more capacitors across the power entry point (i.e.; in parallel with the 10,000 uF capacitor), say a 1000 uF and a 10 uF capacitor.

Then you take your oscilloscope probe and check to see if the capacitors are doing a decent job to stabilize the battery voltage while the circuit is running.  If there was someone in your lab that saw that you were making this power switching circuit and saw the distance between your battery bank and the board, they should have said something.  If really appears that you were left to your own devices or were working with a few students that didn't know any better or they were disinterested.

Without some kind of power decoupling you got those nightmarish voltage swings.

MileHigh

Actually MileHigh our object is precisely to generate those 'nightmarish' voltage swings.  We can use it to good effect.  I agree with you.  It relies on inductance in all the circuit components including the wire. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[TinselKoala]

@MH:
you are right, the full positive or full negative signal only turns on the corresponding mosfet(s). It is when the bipolar pulse swings +/- at least 5 v that every transistor turns on. The working ones, that is. Thanks for pointing it out. Usually I monitor heat but now that the circuit has changed _again_ it's easy to get confused.

@PW: I have done the extremely basic FG offset demo some time ago; I'll see if I can find it, it's contained in one of the TarBaby clips somewhere I think. I set the FG to "DC" output and show how the offset puts it positive or negative as desired, and of course the same with a waveform.
That won't prove anything though: there's no incentive for the offset to "sneak past" the oscilloscope unless a NERD circuit is hooked up.

BTW, I've built "every" variation that seems to be extant, including a couple of my own.

The single mosfet circuit shown on the early Ainslie photo
The single mosfet circuit shown (but NOT demonstrated) in the video
The 5x parallel mosfet circuit that was "claimed" to be the one shown in the video
The actual circuit shown in the video, with and without gate input resistance
The actual circuit shown in the video, but with the FG minus at the common minus, rather than where it is shown on the diagrams
The circuit given in the first unpublished paper
and now
The circuit given in the second unpublished paper.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

It relies on inductance in all the circuit components including the wire. 

That's not going to fly.  You can't present a report on an experiment and say, "we need long wires between the power source and circuit board."  Honestly, you are just 'absorbing' the wild voltage swings into your argument as a coping strategy.

The "battery voltage" makes no sense and the current waveform in negative oscillation mode makes no sense.  If TK and other replicators move forward and do some more testing you will probably see these things explained.

Your fundamental argument is that your circuit is using the "potential only" as supplied by the batteries and the net current and net power consumption of the device is negative while it heats up the load resistor (and the MOSFETs big time!).

Your entire argument is centered on what the DSOs are telling you.  You have been deluged with information recently telling you that your DSO input data is incorrect.  It's NOT the DSO's themselves, they are working properly, it's the data that you are presenting to them that's the issue.

You didn't understand how the circuit actually worked when you did your testing and wrote up your reports.  You have been learning how it actually works whenever there is an active thread.  It feels like WWII and we are fighting up the boot of Italy, fighting for each olive orchard one by one.  But the Allies will win in the end.

MileHigh