another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Hey Tk

I have some questions..   a questions about the circuit, not of your doings,in your honest opinion 

The Rose circuit you show in the vid Abba posted. the one you show to be what is on the table.

Was thinking about when you took the battery out.  If you take away all of the circuit except for the 2 fets and the sig gen.

Is the oscillation still there?  It doesnt need the battery potential connected in any way?
And if so, the inductor is meaningless as to having this oscillation?

If you watch the later videos, you can see what happens when I disconnect the battery, and also when I remove the inductor. And if you watch even later videos, you can see that the oscillation goes away when I use a different mosfet. Rosemary seems confused by the fact that I had to twist the pins around to make it a plug-in replacement for the 2n7000.... explaining to her that pinouts differ in the two different case styles is going to be difficult, I can tell.

And if the oscillation still exists, with or without the rest of the circuit(battery included), does that same oscillation even feed into or affect the rest of the circuit as to show the oscillations at the load and the battery?

I'm afraid I don't understand this part of your question. The oscillations are all through the circuit. They can be read at the current viewing shunt, at the battery terminals as I have done, and everywhere else you might look. Just as Rosemary has shown with her  multiple scope traces all showing the exact same waveforms that I am showing.

Also, What battery voltage and signal level did Rose use in that particular circuit?

You are asking me? Shouldn't you be asking her? All I know is that proper calculations using the data she claimed in the quote I keep asking her about.... indicate that her claim is false, and not by just a "tad" either.

And what was the estimated power out at the load you have figured vs Roses claim of output to the load?

Well, she claims to be putting out over 4000 Watts to the load. 25 million Joules in 100 minutes, remember? And I claim that it's really only about 56 Watts or so, and that her battery pack could do thirty or more such tests before showing a drop below 12 volts each in a no-load test. And she claims the single test uses 2 and a half times the energy in the battery, and I say it doesn't.

Of course that's not what you mean though. You want me to "admit" that the power levels in my test aren't comparable to Rosemary's. This is obvious, isn't it? As obvious as the fact that her circuit isn't putting out four kilowatts into her water load as she has continued to claim.

Also, what purpose does the inductor play in all of this in your opinion? Does it affect the circuit in any way and how, in and out of the circuit?

I was really surprised to see that in my instantiation of Rosemary's circuit, the inductor value didn't seem to make much difference. As you see in the later video I can remove it entirely without hurting the oscillations. I tried little tiny microHenry inductors and bigger ones, and I finally used that choke because it had the secondary winding that did interesting things. The lack of characteristic inductive collapse spikes in the traces Rosemary has shown should indicate that the inductance has little role in her demonstration either.

And finally, 1 about the inductor/transformer. And actually, this one is about your doings...

Do you agree that my description of what is going on with the transformer with the leds across the primary(said inductor) and one on the secondary was accurate?

Almost. Except that when the voltage is below the forward voltage of the LEDs it is as though they aren't there at all.  However, taking the one on the secondary off, turning it around and reinserting it didn't seem to affect anything at all.

And if so, does it affect the outcome in any way as compared to just using an inductor there as prescribed?

I havnt ever said nor admitted that I know how the oscillations are occurring or if it works for sure.

But with so little knowledge of Roses circuit, I could pick apart things that just dont add up with the arguments against her. With not one of you actually building it properly, yet the conclusions are galore. Thats not right. I dont care what Rose says,does, nor has done, if the assumptions from the angry crowd are not held up by due diligence, but short cuts. Whether its sims, not the same circuit, or just not doing anything at all, to show what she has shown is all wrong.

The purpose of my videos is to illustrate some of the problems with the circuit itself. Dealing with the performance claims will come later, once Rosemary clarifies just what the claims are... (see the 25 megaJoule quote). I have illustrated that: there is a DC current path that is not monitored by the scopes and shunts and so forth, that there are feedback oscillations that can occur, and with Rosemary's rats-nest wiring probably are occurring for that reason alone, and in the video I just uploaded, that a Function Generator can indeed charge a battery whose voltage is higher than the FG's peak-to-peak output, if the offset is manipulated.

The three readers here just may feel the same way. But what if one of you gave a full presentation such as Rose has?  Its a lot of work there.

You and some may disagree. But what of the 3 readers? Your audience. You are all visible to them.

Have you, too, forgotten all the work and all the presentations I did on Rosemary's first, single mosfet, COP>17 overunity claim? The Quantum magazine article, all that? Well, it's all documented in a long string of vids on my YT channel. I don't know how much more exact a replication could have been. And of course there was no overunity performance, and as usual, Rosemary made many errors in her computations, and at that time didn't even grasp the concept of integration. Calculus-style, that is, not racial integration...

Some will fall for the insults and assume Rose is the bad guy. Thats what insults are for. That is the intent. And only idiots follow that leader. But that proves nothing. Its just politics. lol if there were no readers, there would be none of this I suppose. But since there are, "Ya Gotta Givem What They Want" attitude appears..  If it were not for the audience, the insults would be of little effect to reaching the final goal, except to show what kind of person you really are. And that happens also with an audience.  So are the insults really productive? Well Im an audience member and I am disappointed in what I see.
I dont count? The 3 readers dont count? What about the real numbers of readers?

Remember when you busted Mylow?  Even though ya knew it was a fake, yet didnt know that there was fishing line yet(as far as I know), your replication was not really the same.
Maybe it was because you felt you knew it was all a joke.

Rosemary is bad, because she's lying about the 25 million Joules, at the very least. Look how she's avoided correcting the math and retracting the claim, even refusing to say "yes" or "no" when asked about it. That's intellectually dishonest and it burns me up... and it should you too. Is it right or wrong? Have you "done the math" yourself on that claim?
And about Mylow: the fishing line idea was first raised by someone other than me. I had already figured out several other ways of doing it, even to the point of making a concealed motor drive that looked just exactly like his base assembly that could be taken apart after a run to show nothing inside. But when the fishing line was suggested, I realized that was the way it was done, and I DID IN FACT replicate it before it was shown to be visible in the photo analyses. I also was the first to replicate his motor, as acknowledged by that weasel Sterling Allen, who didn't give me his promised prize because my replication wasn't "free energy" even though I did it exactly the same way Mylow did. Again, there are pertinent YT videos on my channel, if you've forgotten the sequence of events.

But if you came across something that interested you. Would you still produce a replica that is fairly off from the original, and if it didnt work, then lay the claim that it wont work?  Is this the new status quo? Seems quite unproductive. Is this the new standard in science? 

Mags

Your straw man is leaking all over the place. Maybe you can get the Wizard of Oz to give you a heart.
I don't  need to do an exact replication to know that in Rosemary's circuit there will be power from the FG coming in. I don't need to do an exact replication to illustrate the effect of a series capacitor on FG mosfet switching. I don't need to do an exact replication to know that a claim of putting over 4 kiloWatts into 900 grams of water for 100 minutes is impossible no matter where the energy is coming from, and I don't need to do an exact replication to know that Rosemary is simply not telling the truth about a lot of stuff.

And once you've had a chance to look over those old videos, can you tell me just what part of my replication of the Quantum article circuit was insufficiently exact? I'd really like to know. Let's see... I used a custom matched load to Rosemary's specifications of inductance and resistance, I used IRFPG50 mosfets, I used a 555 timer circuit EXACTLY AS SHE PUBLISHED, not the various ones that others came up with to fix her inverted duty cycle, and I also used the other 555 circuits and a FG and a pulse generator as well. I used current viewing shunts appropriately and I also showed a groundloop problem in that circuit. I duplicated her reported time-temperature profile almost exactly using HER 555 timer circuit.... and I did a comparison of straight DC versus her circuit at the same power levels (guess the result). I analyzed the energy flows using a digital oscilloscope with 1 GHz bandwidth and integration math. I showed how her "random aperiodic Hartley resonant oscillations" were mostly scope trigger problems and screen aliasing, using the exact same Fluke 123 and 199 ScopeMeters she claimed to have used. I boiled water with the circuit, I charged capacitors with it, I even found a mosfet that worked better than the IRFPG50 in every way including the mechanism by which she claimed the batteries would recharge. (2sk1548, IIRC).
So you can take your straw man argument and stuff it....

Do you know that there are still websites out there that are claiming Rosemary has a patent on the circuit?

Battery Charging with a Function Generator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfE_qY8Yax0

[Rosemary Ainslie]

hey rose
Yeah it is funny. Supposedly mit had successful tests back when and covered up. Then Rossi comes along, and after, mit again says yes it works, then Rossi goes down for the count. Just waitng for mit to take it all back again.

Mags

Where has Rossi gone down for the count?  Because Sterling Allen isn't supporting him?  I'm getting confused here Mags.  I personally don't depend on Sterling's support.  Nor - I see - does Rossi.  And we're talking cold fusion.  There are many more claimants to this than Rossi.  Some of which Sterling appears to support.  He's being rather selective.

Regards,
Rosie

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi members and guests,

Being I've asked the question on which NERD RAT device schematic dates go where three times, and never got a response from Rosemary or a NERD RAT team member on the OU forum.


So, I and all concerned NERD RAT device verifiers and replicators will use the obvious COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION video of 12 MARCH 2011 as a reference to the two separate and different schematics without any exceptions.

FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2001_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

12_MARCH_2001_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )


THIS TAKES EFFECT AS OF MARCH 17, 2012 at 12:50 am GMT

Fuzzy

[Magluvin]

Yeah  thats where I read it. But i went there just now and dont see it. Something about this and that and the other.

I dunno. im beat.  tired. MH says Im off balance. whoa is me. lol

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Tinsel Koala,

When you can prove that we have - in any way - falsified our data - or misrepresented our numbers - or misrepresented our circuit - or our circuit components - when you can prove that our measuring instruments are faulted - when you can show us that that the battery discharge of current is responsible for the delivery of 1 half of every half of each oscillation - THEN you will have an argument.  Until then - and while Harti permits this level of blatant traducement - calumny - libel - then I propose that any of your readers - treat any claim that you may make with a certain amount of circumspection.

If you want to show any kind of courage - that you are assuming may be lacking in Mags' posts - then show us your own.  We do not know who it is that is this reckless with his opinion.  If I knew who you were I'd ask you to defend these statements in court. So.  IF you plan to stand by these statements - THEN SHOW US WHO YOU ARE.  That would be interesting indeed.  We all want to know - your name - your employer - and what it is that motivates the EXTRAORDINARY lengths you are going to to try and insinuate and allege so much against me, and against this our technology.  It is highly SUSPECT.

Rosemary