another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,
don´t work on your thesis paper, it is a wasted time cause the measurements are in error.

Harti - you keep saying this and I keep denying it.  To my credit is the fact that I'm experimentally INVOLVED.  To your credit is that I have not published the details related to the 555 switched circuit.  Nor will I. As it relates to the 555 switch it is NOT my work.  It belongs to one of the collaborators.  And he's reluctant to engage here - due to the gratuitous lack of respect that's offered by our forum detractors including Poynty and those sundry contributors on my hate blog.  Quite apart from which it is NOT the experiment under review.  It would need an entirely separate thread with an entirely different emphasis.

You are relying on there being grounding issues and sundry distortions related to inductance. Even IF these were ENTIRELY responsible for our results then this experiment would still need to be more fully researched.  There is NO explanation for the existence of the 'positive half' of each waveform.  And there is no explanation for a net 'negative wattage' - unless there's an alternate energy source.  The first point goes to the thesis - which is why I'm attempting to elaborate on this.  The second point needs experimental evidence - which those such as Groundloop are testing.  But Poynty - who is hardly a champion of the cause - is on record as advising you that this is unlikely to be delivered from the oscilloscope as the amount of 'surplus' energy is somewhat greater than can be reasonably expected to be delivered by the function generator - which is his proposed path.  And anyone doing the 555 test can quickly verify that there are no grounding issues. 

I put it to you that the wide interest of your readers and forum members in any over unity result would merit their engagement.  What you are proposing is that I do the work that you propose.  I'm afraid my 'time' is up when it comes to experimentation.  I am NOT an experimentalist.  My presumptions are related to the thesis which, when understood, will be far more significant than these tedious debates related to whether or not these results are correct.  And while the explanation for that 'positive half' of each waveform remains unresolved - then, indeed, our thesis is the only explanation on offer.  And it seems that both experimental evidence and simulated evidence supports this. And IF that thesis is even 'half right' - then it points to a potential efficiency that is not - usually - exploited.

Just work on measuring the battery status before and after the experiment.  This is the only way to see, if your circuit really puts out more energy than it consumes...

And again, for the record, should you somehow find two academics who will support the evidence of comparative draw-down tests - then rest assured.  I will see to it that those tests are run - repeatedly -  and that engagement will be as public as you require.  And that will ENTIRELY resolve the questions that you pose related to grounding or any other issues.  And I confidently predict that in all such tests our experiment will grossly outperform the control.

There is absolutely NO WAY that isolated measurements made - before and after testing - will resolve this.  I have explained this at length.  Our tests show no diminution in AT ALL over the entire period that we have been using those 6 batteries of ours that still remain 'uncharged'.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And if you have, indeed, managed to curtail that 'flaming' - thank you Harti.  It's appreciated.
energy's edited to 'energy'

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Groundloop,

As ever, your work is beautifully presented and entirely appropriate.  Thank you very much indeed for proposing this circuit variation.  It speaks to the question very well indeed.

Let us know what the outcome is if you get around to testing this.

The very kindest of regards,
Rosemary

[Groundloop]

My dear Groundloop,

As ever, your work is beautifully presented and entirely appropriate.  Thank you very much indeed for proposing this circuit variation.  It speaks to the question very well indeed.

Let us know what the outcome is if you get around to testing this.

The very kindest of regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

What I have tested so far is that the circuit runs very well by using a 9 volt battery (NiMeh) as
negative bias for the mosfet transistors. I did use my scope to check. My next modification
on the circuit is using the L3 coil as a charger for the 9 volt battery when the circuit runs.
My 12 volt 60 ampere lead acid battery was out of service and I have switched to a 12
volt 7 ampere battery for testing.  The circuit is currently running for test. Attached is the next
version of the circuit. I will also test the circuit on a 650 Farad 2,7 Volt Boost Capacitor.
I will post any result of the tests here later on.

Regards,
GL.

[fuzzytomcat]

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

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.   


Regards
Rosemary

Nice try diverting the subject again after your award winning "PRIZE" but .....

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg288257/#msg288257  (read me  )

Quote -
I need to remind you Poynt.99 that this test of ours is replicated on the following variation.  1 battery - used - same supply used to generate the charge for the switch - THEREFORE no functions generator - NO long wires on that test - NO grounding issues - same evident zero voltage discharge - and temperature over the iron resistor at 240 degrees which was hot enough to vaporise solder.


Humm .... no 555 timer mentioned or used it was a direct connection, I wonder what was the duty cycle.

Vaporized the "LEAD SOLDER" .... WOW .... 361.4 °F is the melting point, the Boiling point is 3180 °F and "VAPORIZATION" point is 179.5 KJ·molâˆ'1  ..... incredible !!!

NO WONDER THERE'S IS NO PROOF AT ALL ANYWHERE OF THIS SOLDERING IRON EXPERIMENT IT WAS SO HOT IT TOTALLY VAPORIZED THE WHOLE THING AND NOTHING WAS LEFT LIKE COMPONENTS, DOCUMENTATION, DATA FILES, OSCILLOSCOPE SCREEN SHOTS ARE ALL GONE !!!


There's your proof hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha !!!!!

FuzzyTomCat

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

What I have tested so far is that the circuit runs very well by using a 9 volt battery (NiMeh) as
negative bias for the mosfet transistors. I did use my scope to check. My next modification
on the circuit is using the L3 coil as a charger for the 9 volt battery when the circuit runs.
My 12 volt 60 ampere lead acid battery was out of service and I have switched to a 12
volt 7 ampere battery for testing.  The circuit is currently running for test. Attached is the next
version of the circuit. I will also test the circuit on a 650 Farad 2,7 Volt Boost Capacitor.
I will post any result of the tests here later on.

Regards,
GL.

Thank you Groundloop.  Any information here would be welcome when it's work that is presented so entirely objectively. 

Kindest regards, as ever,
Rosie