another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

I'm not sure whether it's deliberate.  But I'm beginning to see the 'technique'.  Here it is.  It is ALLEGED that the claims have been discounted - AS PRESENTED.  I argue this through 40 odd pages of internet correspondence.  Those arguments are IGNORED.  The allegation is made that my claims have been discounted.  I ARGUE THIS THROUGH 40 odd MORE pages of internet correspondence.  Those arguments are IGNORED.

And so it goes.  I'm not sure that our poor little claim will ever make it on these forums.  The good news however and God willing - is that the papers are about to be published.  And doubly EXCELLENT is that they'll be reviewed by acknowledged EXPERTS.  This TEDIOUS prattle presented with all the pretensions of actual 'KNOWLEDGE OF THE ART' - is utterly DESTRUCTIVE to any claims related to over unity - let alone claims of INFINITE co-efficient of performance.

And Guys.  NOTA BENE.  We have on offer a definitive test related to battery draw downs - which I am MORE THAN HAPPY to conduct - SUBJECT ONLY TO THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by no less than 2 ACADEMIC EXPERTS - that this test will be considered DEFINITIVE.  That is ALL that's required.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

added
And also NOTA BENE.  For some reason that offer of a battery draw down test is UTTERLY IGNORED.  Golly.  If I had to draw a conclusion from this - I'd say that there's some CRYING NEED to ignore that challenge.


Rosie Pose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And MileHigh,

IF we're going to 'talk' about 'moral bankruptcy' then may I propose something.  You want me to do a test that you suggests will show 'under unity'.  I cannot argue - because I'm NOT about to do that test.  What I WILL DO, AGAIN, is a full on 'to duration' comparative test between a control and our own system.  Here's my conditions.  Get me any two academic experts who will go PUBLIC with such a test as being definitive - and I'll do those comparative draw down tests - over and over - AND IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW - for as often as it takes to prove this efficiency.  That way I won't be wasting my time - which is what you're hoping to engage me in.

SURELY - with all that KNOWLEDGE of yours and with your apparently 'well accredited' background - you'd be well able to rally a couple of academics to this?  Surely?  IF not you then Poynty?  And IF not Poynty - then Professor Steven E Jones?  And then?  IF we can't show the advantages of a switched system using our technology  - over standard and conventional circuit application  - YOU'LL BE PROVED RIGHT.  And how nice would that be?

So.  MilesUpThere - HOW ABOUT IT?

Regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Seriously, after studying I wonder why everyone lose their time with this...


A test in Falstad will show the weird behavior of that circuit, I cannot imagine finally how this circuit can be OU    .
OMG, Q2 do literally nothing    It just short Q1:


When Q2 is on the current go from the battery to the the inductive resistor Q2  the function generator (if you want to burn it, it's the best circuit   ) the shunt and go back to the battery...
Something goes wrong here, in my simulation the inductance is not even pulsed    ...


I post the source code to see yourself...



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 0.12250020577367378
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
w 528 176 400 176 0
w 400 176 400 192 0
f 432 208 400 208 0 1.5
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 400 224 400 288 0
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
w 432 208 496 288 0
w 496 288 528 288 0
o 17 64 1 291 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 20 64 1 291 0.625 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 2.5 9.765625E-5 2 -1




www.falstad.com


Can someone explain what's wrong here !?
SRM.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Schubert,

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I have no idea how one does these simulations.  But I'm delighted that you're exploring this.  Can we at least see a picture of your waveforms?  I know that this waveform has been simulated by a number of people - including Poynty Point.  I get it that you don't get any oscillation at all? Or is it that you get something that's always greater than zero?

Either way - it would be nice to see what you do get.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear MileHigh

I keep hoping to post something to the effect 'FINALLY - NO MORE COUNTER ARGUMENT.  ALL IS SILENCE'.  Instead of which I get your background prattle.  Hopefully this post will do the trick.  Your following three nominated conditions refer.

1) If the capacitor decreases in voltage, the batteries are outputting a measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

2) If the capacitor does not change in voltage, the batteries are showing no measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

3) If the capacitor increases in voltage, the batteries are receiving a measurable amount of net energy from the rest of the circuit after ten seconds, i.e.; they are being recharged.

All three conditions depend on any claim at all that suggests that there is either MORE or LESS  power going to the battery which somehow will be proven by replacing one of those batteries with a capacitor.   This has nothing AT ALL to do with our CLAIM. 

Here is our claim.

However, the distinction is drawn that the battery primary supply is a passive component during this oscillation. And while it is evident that it fluctuates in line with the applied current flow from the oscillation, yet its average voltage does not appear to rise significantly above its rating either during or after these tests which would be proof of a recharge in the oscillation cycle. But nor is there evidence of a loss of voltage. In fact these results point to an energy supply potential in circuit material that may be exploited without a corresponding loss of energy from the battery supply source. This requires a fuller study, which is the overarching intention of this publication.

-/...