another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[hartiberlin]

P.S: Rosemary,
how do we know, that your function generator is not broken and it will
put all the additional power into the circuit?

If you don´t use a digital
kill-a-watt type  digital power meter to the measure the input power
you really can´t say anything and
it also might have ground current loops from the multiple ground lines
in the circuit  and scope probe and function generator grounds interferring ?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

There you go Poynty Point

Isn't this so much better than simply insulting a challenger for your prize in your efforts to deny them this?  Well done.  And well done for referencing the ONLY probe positioning in your confusing set of schematics that is readable. 



Now.  Let's reference that schematic and your manifest confusions related to this.

The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component. 

.99

You show the simple configuration of a circuit that applies a DIRECT CURRENT to a load with the bias of the probes CORRECTLY ILLUSTRATED.  So far so good.  NEXT. You establish the current flow having a NEGATIVE VALUE.  This is INCORRECT.  Let me see if I can explain this.

In order to determine the amount of power that is dissipated at the load and delivered by the battery - both - one first needs to determine the RATE OF CURRENT FLOW.  To find this number - this 'rate of flow' a Mr Ohm determined that you can take the applied voltage from the source and divide it by the resistive value of the load itself.  Then.  Then one can PREDICT that the amount of current that flows from that battery will be something less than the amount of voltage potential at the battery supply source.  And the actual wattage is then a product of this voltage x that current.  Since the flow of current is IN THIS INSTANCE coming exclusively from the battery then correctly the product is POSITIVE.

NOW.  In order to CHECK that value - or to determine it MORE ACCURATELY - then one can simply place the probes across the load resistor and measure the voltage across that and divide that by the resistive value of the load.  This will also give you the rate of current flow, possibly more accurately.  But to measure a potential difference across that resistor with a second probe and at the same time as one measures the voltage across the battery then one would need to position the probes as you have shown.  ELSE YOU WILL NOT SEE ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  The fact that it shows a negative potential is IRRELEVANT.  That negative voltage is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT THAT IS FLOWING THROUGH THE CIRCUIT.  NOR DOES IT INDICATE THE POLARITY OR JUSTIFICATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW. Under closed conditions the ONLY current flowing through the circuit is FROM THE BATTERY.

I am not sure what you're trying to point to.  But I assure you that it is fair and reasonable to determine that the flow of current is determined by the potential difference at the battery and convention has ALWAYS required that to be represented as a positive current flow.  I think, if ANYTHING you are trying to lend some credence to the entirely fallacious argument that - because one measures a negative voltage across the load resistor then the current flow must be negative.  It may be negative - provided ONLY that this potential difference can generate back or 'counter' electromotive force (CEMF).  But to do this the circuit would first need to be OPEN.  As represented - and as you've shown it - that BATTERY is the sole source of power.  And it CANNOT magically simply return energy to itself or generate a negative current flow.

I wonder if we can  refer  - NOT so much to your own analysis - but to our paper.  It has the merit of being more conventionally dependable.  Please advise us where you have objections to our applied protocols.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Added this for clarification.
with a second probe and at the same time as one measures the voltage across the battery
and this
NOR DOES IT INDICATE THE POLARITY OR JUSTIFICATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Harti,

Thank you for getting back to me.  And compliments of the season.  I trust you had a good holiday.

I have scanned now your 2 PDF files
and can not find any measurement results of the input power into the
Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 from the grid.

If I understand this correctly you're asking where we measured the power FROM the generator in the application of that signal at the transistors.  If this is right we explained this in the paper.  We measured the amount of power and found it to not only be negligible but to have a negative value in relation to the supply.  Therefore it would served to DEPLETE rather than to ADD to the energy coming from the battery.  In any event the current value is that negligible that it can be comfortably factored into the margins for error. 

So these measurements are still missing and you certainly need to
add them to your other measurements and also use noninductive shunts.
Not these high inductance wire shunts !

We used high wattage resistors PRECISELY because we were generating HIGH CURRENT.  No doubt it would be preferred to use those highly calibrated shunt resistors but, unfortunately, they were and are outside our budget.  HOWEVER - the problems associated with the small inductances on those resistors are only relevant if our measurements of energy are marginal.  This is not the case in any of the examples included in that paper. 

As long as these measurements are not provided, it could all also be measurement
errors, cause you don´t know, how much power the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324
puts into the circuit.

Margins for error has been factored in and most certainly IS referenced in that paper.

Also it would be very wise to "unground" the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324,
so there will be no shielding ground current loops available, that could add power
from the shielding case ground currents.

We tested this on a 555 switch.  Reference again in that paper.  The results are the same.  And our results were measured using a Tektronix oscilloscope meter in conjunction with the LeCroy.  They give precisely equivalent results.  The Tektronix is not grounded.  Therefore the LeCroy results are confirmed not be influenced by ground.  We only used the LeCroy screen downloads for the paper because they are clearer and gives a fuller account of the circuit values.

So I would urge you to finally just do a circuit with a negative bias voltage onto the  Mosfets
and use a tap switch to a higher voltage spike to start the oscillation
and thus remove the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 completely from the circuit.

We have done this on independent tests.  I am more than happy to send you the downloads.  The problem is that while this is your requirement it is not that of the electrical engineers whom we consulted.  It's difficult to conform to everyone's requirements Harti.  And our own tests needed to conform to the requirements of those experts.

Also as this whole unit inclusive batteries is over 20 Kg it can not apply for the overunity prize.
See the OU prize conditions again.

I read this.  There may be a way around it as there are some tests that can be managed with less applied voltage.  This can still be discussed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Regarding this post script

P.S: Rosemary,
how do we know, that your function generator is not broken and it will
put all the additional power into the circuit?

Because we have used no less than 4 - interchangeably - and because all 4 are calibrated.

If you don´t use a digital
kill-a-watt type  digital power meter to the measure the input power
you really can´t say anything and

I think that both LeCroy and Tektronix would claim CONSIDERABLY greater accuracy than the accuracies provided by a kill-a-watt digital power meter - with respect. 

it also might have ground current loops from the multiple ground lines
in the circuit  and scope probe and function generator grounds interferring ?

Not sure what you're referring to here.  The functions generator?  Or the oscilloscopes?  Either way - I addressed these concerns in our previous correspondence.

Again,
Regards,

Rosemary

[poynt99]

Dear three readers of this thread,

I sincerely hope Rosemary's analysis of my last post is not taken seriously. It's a shame when even Ohm's law can be so carelessly butchered.

Evidently, Rosemary has an innate ability to severely FUBAR even the most incredibly simple and clear circuit. 

.99