another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[powercat]

@eatenbyagrue
Have you actually seen the terms and conditions for the OU prize ?
If you have problems with pdf Please see the second post.
http://www.overunity.com/5707/overunity-prize-conditions-for-1-watt-device-pdf-file-attached/

We are not looking for a fantasy device we need a real device that works and that can be developed to run a home or car.

[MileHigh]

Eatenbyagrue:

If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.

Your statement above is simply ridiculous, right out of the Bizarro Universe.  We are here.  Standard units and measurements will work here, and on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.  They can't be changed.

Going back to Rosemary's setup, one of the key things that was learned and is very important and worth repeating again is the following:

1.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode the battery current that is powering the device flows through the function generator, it does not flow through the current sensing resistor.
2.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode what actually flows through the current sensing resistor is an AC-coupled signal that comes from an oscillator that is running in the Q2 MOSFET array.
3.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode the voltage measured across the battery has a huge AC waveform superimposed on top of the actual DC voltage.  This AC waveform is not to related to the DC output from the battery bank which is the true voltage that is powering the circuit.

If you accept points 1, 2, and 3 above as being true, then it means that all of the DSO waveform analysis done by Rosemary and the NERD team is invalid because they were looking at junk data.

If Rosemary completely ignores this posting then my opinion is that she is in denial, and everything that she does to try to advance her proposition will be an exercise in futility.

There are some important principles at stake here that go above and beyond Rosemary's NERD project.  The analysis of electronic circuits is either rooted in logic and reason, or else it's just a nonsensical exercise in wishful thinking.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Cultural relativism, moral relativism, and now we have the good Counselor arguing for mathematical relativism. If I didn't believe he was pulling your leg I'd think he was serious.

All that is as it may be, but you cannot run your cookstove or refrigerator or jacuzzi or automobile on mathematical relativism.

It's a good thing that her utility provider doesn't calculate the way she does, or she'd be in the poorhouse after a single batch of oxtail soup.

But what does that have to do with testing? I have proposed, and even illustrated, a simple test that does not require any mathematics, relative or otherwise, other than flipping a coin to randomize the batteries. Other tests have also been proposed, but since we seem to have trouble with math and measurements on this project, why not do without them? Just run the circuit in load heating mode, getting near 200 degrees C on the uncovered resistive load, for a couple of days. Then do a dim bulb test comparing the running batteries with the set-aside batteries.

No new apparatus is required other than a simple automatic automotive battery charger and a handful of brake light bulbs. I think we can take up a collection to buy you those items, Rosemary, if it will help you get started with your testing.

Oh, wait... what's the matter with me, I'm supposed to be _suppressing_ the technology...... oops. What will my Oil Baron Bosses say when they find out that I am actually encouraging the tests to begin?

[TinselKoala]

There's one more thing glaringly wrong with eatenbyagrue's mathematical relativism argument. And that is: if it can apply to the NERD device, it can also apply to Tar Baby..... that is, if RA can use the definitions and techniques that result in HER calculations of overunity.... so can I. And.... since I am actually testing and publishing right now, and she is not..... well, do the math.

Oh, wait.... the Tar Baby batteries ran down before the set-aside one did. Well, that proves that Tar Baby is overunity, since in my mathematically relative calculation, negative power drain should produce negative run times, and 103 - 22 is 64.

[TinselKoala]

Using #1157 automotive bulbs with both filaments in parallel, one per battery, and figuring the maximum capacity that has been mentioned for the NERD batteries of 60 Amp-Hours..... the matter could probably be settled in three hours or less in the Dim Bulb test. Those bulbs put a heavy drain on the supply, having a cold-state resistance of only about half an Ohm. This could be shown completely in a five-minute time-lapse video. (ETA: Well, perhaps a bit longer. The bulbs draw about 2.7 Amps from 12 volt supply when warmed up. So use two or three per battery.)

So, allowing one day for charging with the automatic charger, two days running in load heating mode, and half a day for the Dim Bulb test, that is 3 and a half days PER test, so in, er, 14 days, someone could perform 14/3.5 = 4 entire complete tests, randomizing the batteries each time, and the only measurement anyone would have to make or interpret would be reading a clock and flipping a coin. Schedule one more and make it 3 out of five for the Big Win.

Of course we need to make sure that the device is in "big heat" mode, as shown in the second half of the NERD video, heating that load to 190 degrees C, for the duration of the 48 hour runtime on the circuit.