another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hahaha, I thought this thread was closed a long time ago. Here it is a year or so later and people are still trying to get rosie to understand what a watt is. It's also hard to beleive that she hasn't been able to get any "Acedemics" to review her circuit yet. I wonder why that is??

Keep up the good work rosie

Indeed.  I thought our threads were all getting a bit tired. Hopefully this will give it some impetus. 

Thanks MrMag,
Rosie

[poynt99]

@poynt99

Coming late to the party has not, done me any favours I know.

But I am not sweating it its just a glaring cause of conscern that could be so easily accounted for.

I don't know how a variable DC supply could provide signal required to cause the cct to oscillate unless you are relying on the capacitance and inductance of the cct to make it self oscillate, the variable DC supply only providing the 'bias'. but this would be very difficult to control or even specify. If you are talking about making the variable DC supply part of the oscillator as in the voltage 'varies' due to a feedback mechanism.

Whatever mechanism is chosen to initiate and maintain the oscillations, it needs to be accounted for.

Indeed, it is the parasitic inductance and capacitance in the circuit causing it to oscillate, once the appropriate amount of voltage bias is applied to Q2.

Agreed, any power sources such as those providing bias or an oscillation should be accounted for to be most accurate.

The thing is this, Rosemary is claiming that the circuit produces over 100W of average power going back into the battery, and I know from the simulations that the function generator is contributing about 3W.

Once the measurements are taken properly (which they haven't been to date, despite what Rosemary thinks) , it becomes quite evident that the circuit is actually consuming about 30W of power from the battery, and in this case the 3W contributed by the function generator is a little more significant by comparison.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

hi rose, dont worry, very soon you will be vindicated. i know you are correct and there is more to physics than we ever thought possible. we as a human race, if it can be imagined it can be DONE. dont be discouraged! stay in touch

And David.  I couldn't work out who on earth Curious Chris was referencing.  Thanks for this.  You're right of course.  Physics is WEIRD in it's potentials - and that's just working within the standard model - assuming there's any such thing.

Thanks for your support - as ever,
Rosie 

A small spelling correction.
Good heavens.  I wrote Curiouser Chris.  For some reason this must have been on my mind. Golly
R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Indeed, it is the parasitic inductance and capacitance in the circuit causing it to oscillate, once the appropriate amount of voltage bias is applied to Q2.

Agreed, any power sources such as those providing bias or an oscillation should be accounted for to be most accurate.

The thing is this, Rosemary is claiming that the circuit produces over 100W of average power going back into the battery, and I know from the simulations that the function generator is contributing about 3W.

Once the measurements are taken properly (which they haven't been to date, despite what Rosemary thinks) , it becomes quite evident that the circuit is actually consuming about 30W of power from the battery, and in this case the 3W contributed by the function generator is a little more significant by comparison.

.99

Poytny Point,  I can't comment on this.  It has absolutely NO BEARING on anything that we've claimed or tested.  Would it be asking too much to email me your file?  I think I really should give it some attention.  In case you've lost it - my email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za

Alternatively we could, perhaps, just stick to that earlier post of yours where you proposed to multiply the voltage across the load with the voltage across the battery to ascertain it's power?

Your pick

As ever,
Rosie Posie

Edited again.  Took out a question mark.  My eyes are now REALLY tired guys.  I'm going to get some much needed sleep. 

[aether22]

Ok, Rosemarry please excuse me for asking these questions.

First, do I understand correctly that there is a current in these circuits that not only is against the direction applied by the battery and the collapse, but that it moves through diodes/transistors in the wrong direction without apparent damage?

Actually, that really is the only question I had.

I am interested in replicating one of these circuits, what is the most robust preferred embodiment and parts?

Also for what it's worth I certainly know part of how these types of circuits work and I think I probably know enough to make them produce more power if you are interested. (and I'm not just blowing smoke)

Thanks,
John