another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi members and guests,

For you reference a image of my comments at YouTube on the testing at CPUT university .....  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKER
Guys

Not sure how many readers here are that interested.  But it may be worth your while to look in at TK's last two videos.  I've watched then both - repeatedly.  But I'm only one of about 30 or so,  on the latest -  and only one of about 50 or so on the previous.  Not that well subscribed TK.  I wonder why?  In any event - it may be worth your while to dip in there.

Here's his circuit - as CLAIMED.  We've got a battery supply (3 volts or thereby) - I'll refer to that battery plus terminal as (Ref) 1.  This then goes to an inductor (undefined ) that has a diode path in either direction in parallel to that inductor.  I'll refer to that as (Ref)2.  This then goes to the Q-array with the signal terminal presumably applied to the gate leg of Q1.  I'll refer to that as (Ref 3).  So.  We've got 1 in series with 2 in series with 3.  And then this all goes to the common ground which is in series with negative terminal of the battery supply - which I'll refer to as (Ref)4.  Again - 1 (battery postiive) to 2 (inductor with paralleled diodes as LED's) to 3 (gate leg of Q1 of the Q-array) to 4 (the negative terminal of the battery).  All very simple.

Now.  TK's using a dual channel oscilloscope and 2 probes. He has the one positioned at the same junction as the probe terminal of the function generator - Ref 3 - which then shows us the applied signal.  And he has the other positioned - presumably - between the battery positive terminal and the inductor load with it's paralleled diodes or LED's - Ref 1.  I personally can't see any of their grounds - but we can assume that they've been positioned appropriately.  Then he adjusts the output of the signal generator that it has about 10 volts of applied signal - which is not insubstantial.  Then he disconnects the battery and shows us those oscillations - not over the battery because that's disconnected - BUT - across that load inductor of his.  Then he states - correctly - that since the battery is out of the circuit - and since the oscillations are still very apparent - and since they're relatively substantial - and since there's no other supply source - then one may conclude that the power for that circuit is COMING FROM THE APPLIED SIGNAL AT THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  And he's RIGHT. 

BUT - here's the thing.  ALL that he's actually managed is to prove is that 'optionally' - and with sufficient applied voltage at the signal - and with a nominal resistance at the load - then it is possible to generate a voltage potential from that signal generator that it can power a load.  Which is very interesting indeed.  And not only that but the oscillations at either side of those voltage peaks - are consistent with the 'shape' of our own oscillations.  Not the 'volume' so to speak - but certainly the general shape. 

Where he 'errors' as Poynty puts it - is in his conclusion.  What he then claims - with a rather desperate abuse of generality -  is that THEREFORE THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT WHEN WE GENERATE THAT OSCILLATION IT IS ACTUALLY FROM THE POWER SUPPLIED BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  And this is patently nonsense.  We take the trouble to MEASURE the output from the function generator.  The voltage is nominal and in any event below zero - during the oscillation phase.  At best it means that energy is being 'returned' to that generator rather than 'delivered by'.  Then.  It it true that I have not detailed our 555 tests.  Nor will I until we've done that final battery draw down test.  But you only need to look at the oscillations that are managed through simulations.  No function generator and YET that oscillation is evident. 

I've got more to tell you related to that last diode that he used to replace the previous.  That was truly INGENIOUS.  But I'll get back here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Ok Rosemary, I think we all get the poynt.

I made an error when I once used the term "errored" instead of "erred".  To err is human, and contrary to what you and Magluvin say, I'm pretty sure I qualify as human.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi members and guests,

There appears to be some huge problems associated with "dooziedont's" demonstration at CUPT on 12 March 2011 here is one of them ....

The video shows five (5) batteries in a voltage supply bank at 60.4 volts .... but the published schedule of device components shows six (6) batteries which includes most all testing data and documentation using a 72 volt system .....

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Rosemary, I think we all get the poynt.

I made an error when I once used the term "errored" instead of "erred".  To err is human, and contrary to what you and Magluvin say, I'm pretty sure I qualify as human.

Poynty Point.  I KNOW this.  We are all mere mortals.  And hopefully you see how TEDIOUS it is to be constantly reminded of our errors.  At least my reference to your own 'errorring' does NOT IMPLY A LACK OF INTEGRITY.  LOL  Quite apart from which - it's rather nice.  I'm into individuality when it comes to expression.  In a big way.  Surely you realise this by now?

Take care there Poynty Point.  You're invaluable to this over unity drive of ours.  Even if you don't realise it.  And I'm rather fond of you - in a twisted kind of way.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.