The bulb is warming the thermistor. I was hoping there would be enough thermal lag that the system would oscillate slowly just on its own, but instead the response is fast enough that it "regulates", that is, for a given potentiometer setting, the thermistor/mosfet tries to keep the sensed temperature stable. So if something blows the rising hot air from the bulb, away from the thermistor, then the thermistor cools and the feedback loop reduces the mosfet's resistance to compensate for the cooling by brightening the bulb.

So... what has happened to the NERD circuit and the claims of Rosemary Ainslie?

Her recent laboratory test, where she sent the actual circuit itself, even including the white pegboard and the function generator, confirmed that the batteries DO discharge while operating and the circuit is oscillating.
This has also been confirmed by everyone who has built the circuit (or her earlier COP>17 claimed circuit).

Thus it is evident that the oscillations and the calculated negative mean power product do NOT produce battery recharging, nor PREVENT battery discharging, nor do they even compensate in any way for the high DC power levels shown during the non-oscillation portion of the period.

So the major claim, that a load can be powered usefully with no discharge of the batteries, is soundly refuted. There is no support for this claim anywhere, not even in Ainslie's own original draft manuscripts or data. The ridiculous COP > INFINITY or COP INFINITY claim is put to rest as the illconsidered verbal garbage that it is.

The claim that the oscillations are something special, something unusual not accounted for by "standard protocols" is also ridiculous and ignorant on its face, but nevertheless has also been empirically disproven, by simulations and by actually constructing circuits that exhibit the identical oscillations --- designed using standard electronic theory and constructed from cheap off-the-shelf components. In addition, many reference materials have been found, collected and displayed from electrical engineering texts, mosfet application notes and data sheets, and other sources that explain the nature, cause, and treatment of parasitic oscillations in mosfet circuits and feedback oscillations in amplifiers in general.

The secondary minor claim that the oscillations in the NERD circuit are extraordinary and result in unusual circuit behavior is therefore soundly refuted. No support exists for this claim anywhere. Ainslie's daft manuscripts are riddled with errors in her attempted analysis of the oscillations in her own circuit.

It appears that there is only one possible claim left that has not yet been thoroughly discredited, and that is the presumed advantage in heat effect at the load... a vague claim as to the higher efficiency in heating, using the output of the NERD circuit as opposed to simple DC.

In the first part of Ainslie's reports, the NERDs describe a kind of "calibration" procedure, where they determine the "temperature over the resistor" and correlate that with the DC power levels applied to the resistor. Then they use this "nomograph" data to estimate the power levels that their apparatus delivers to the resistor. In other words, if the DC control produced "heat over the resistor" of, say, 200 degrees at a DC input of 10 Watts, then, subsequently, when 200 degrees is measured "over" the load resistor while running on the NERD circuit.... the claim is made that the circuit is dissipating 10 Watts in the load.
Later, then, the claim is made that the load heat measurement... the temperature over the resistor, translated to Watts, as read off this nomograph.... indicates some higher efficiency than could be obtained with DC alone. However no actual electrical power measurements at the load were reported by the NERDs.

Clearly... or at least I hope it is clear... there are one or two "minor"  problems with this methodology. Hopefully the remaining NERDs will address some of these problems when performing the only tests that are left that could possibly show any benefit to the NERD circuit: real tests of the efficiency of load (and circuitry) heating.

Ainslie is reputedly preparing for some kind of testing of her apparatus. But what apparatus?

Considering the history of the schematic.... the addition of 4 mosfets, the mistaken hookup, the concealment, the misplaced FG black clip, and so on, even including the questionable scopeshots ..... it is IMPERATIVE that everyone evaluating any tests reported by Ainslie know the actual schematic in use. And we know what a mess Ainslie makes when attempting to draw or interpret a schematic, even a simple one like her own.

Therefore I consider it absolutely necessary for the NERD device, as tested, to be shown in clear photographs at sufficient detail so that the actual apparatus wiring can be confirmed to agree with whatever schematic diagram is claimed to be used in the testing.

THIS IS IMPERATIVE. The NERDS have definitely proven one thing, with all their demonstrations, papers and discussions: they do not know how to draw or interpret schematic diagrams, and they see nothing wrong with concealing material information about them. The test apparatus AS TESTED must be fully documented with detailed photographs that allow the actual wiring arrangement to be seen clearly and unambiguously.

There is of course one other test that the observers here would really like to see. That is the duplication of the conditions that resulted in the scopeshot below.

Personally I think this should be the very first test Ainslie demonstrates. Let's see the circuit make a comparable set of oscilloscope traces, using the schematic that is claimed correct and official as of 31 July 2012 (today), with all components functioning properly.


If this cannot be demonstrated...... then all else is completely moot.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 31, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
The bulb is warming the thermistor. I was hoping there would be enough thermal lag that the system would oscillate slowly just on its own, but instead the response is fast enough that it "regulates", that is, for a given potentiometer setting, the thermistor/mosfet tries to keep the sensed temperature stable. So if something blows the rising hot air from the bulb, away from the thermistor, then the thermistor cools and the feedback loop reduces the mosfet's resistance to compensate for the cooling by brightening the bulb.

Sorry t I thought you were using the bulb as the r in a tuned tank and changing the parameters of the r in the secondary to match the primary tanks input.