Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Started by Rosemary Ainslie, November 08, 2011, 09:15:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

evolvingape

Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2012, 01:50:35 PM
I think this thread is going nowhere until Rosemary will do some new measurements without
the function generator and post new measurements results and a video showing
her new setup with the 555 timer...


So as I am getting too many private complains about her spamming now this thread,
I am closing this thread now.

Rosemary, when you will have a new experiment with the 555 timer , the battery tests and a new
video and measurement results , just contact me privately and then I can
open up the thread again. Until then , just work on your setup and make new videos
and document it only with the 555 timer and forget the function generator whiich puts energy
into the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: hartiberlin on April 02, 2012, 05:58:53 PM
Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I am not opening this thread again because of the legal threat I received of
her lawyer, but maybe there will be coming some new evidence from these tests.

As I don´t like to be threaten by legal action I might pull the plug again, if this
thread goes nowhere again and close it again and make a backup as PDF and
post it in the Download archive and remove it from the forum completely.

Battery drawdown test data is where ? I cannot find it in the 30 pages since this thread was reopened. Did I miss it ?

TinselKoala

It's in my video called "The Dim Bulb Test", where I compare the batteries that ran Tar Baby for several hours, against an equally charged, but unused one.

Oh.... you mean "Where's the battery drawdown test from Rosemary Ainslie, testing her NERD device".  Someone is preventing her from testing, and she has NO SAY in the matter, according to her. She has claimed that it's me doing it, but lately she's blaming it on our good host, which I can't understand at all. He's providing her with a platform for discussion and testing and scientific dialog, and all she seems able to do is play "grammar editor" and insult people for no reason. My NERD Tesla test preventer doesn't have that frequency band enabled, so I know I'm not responsible for her inability to address the real issues...

Meanwhile... Testing Kontinues.... with ALL data published in an undisclosed public location hidden in plain view. Just not data from NERDs.

And somehow.... in all that yammering about "answering all".... she managed not to answer anything at all. Particularly the question of just how Tar Baby is different from the NERD device described in the papers. How is it different? Why are my batteries running down, but hers..... well we really still don't know what hers are doing, do we.


Rosemary Ainslie

Guys,

Now that I've got my thread back - partially - I've also got the time to comment on previous posts in better detail.  This one is intriguing. Lest anyone's inclined to take it seriously - a transcript follows.

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 04:38:11 PM
.99: In the video I realize that I'm oscillating the Q1 mosfet because I've got the 555 pin 3 going to the FG POSITIVE location on the circuit, but now I've fixed that, simply by routing the Pin 3 to the FG NEGATIVE location on the circuit (duh). Using a variable power supply at 10 volts input to the 555 circuit, I have perfectly stable oscillations on the Q2 mosfet drains (and everywhere else of course) and a reading on the inline meter of about 320 mA..... and the load is warming nicely. (9 volts from the 9v battery wasn't quite enough to get stable in the q2 osc mode.) I found that the 555 gets hot and glitchy so I put a heat sink on it and now it is perfectly stable, has been running the Tar Baby and heating the load with Q2 oscs only for an hour or so, load is up to 104 F.

Here's how I read this paragraph.

"I got the oscillations even though I put the 555 pin 3 at the FG positive.  But I've fixed that.  I changed to a variable power supply and I also put that 555 pin 2 to the FG negative.  And now.  Surprisingly all is STILL oscillating as it should be.  Everywhere.  And off my little inline ammeter I can show a current drawn down at 320 mA... Although my little inline ammeter can't read amperage at these frequencies.  And the load is warming up nicely - but that 'warm up' is ONLY due to the 'tuning prior to the oscillations.  It has nothing to do with the oscillations themselves - which are essentially valueless.  I've already explained this.  In my previous video related to this.  And nor am I about to tell you the actual voltage across the batteries - because then I'd have to admit that I'm using batteries.  And worse still - you'll be able to calculate how much energy is being dissipated at that load.  Or you might.  God forbid that anything become that relevant.  So.  For now.  Pro temp.  Assume that it is NOT whatever is shown.  And while I'm at it - DID I MENTION THAT THERE ARE PHASE SHIFTS?  If not... then look closely.  8) And I'll not bother to calculate the voltage across the load - but REST ASSURED.  It's sum is NEGATIVE.  I sucked that number out of my thumb after I'd washed my hands.  But before my manicure.  That way you can assume freely.  Like I do.  And I am most earnestly IMPLYING that we're doing a replication of the NERD circuit array and not the TK TAR BABY which stands for 'TERRIBLE KIND OF TRIAL AT REPLICATING - BABY.  And BABY stands for Badly Advised By an Y'idiot."

So indeed - if I do not view TK's videos then I may very well fall 'behind'.  And thankfully TK's work PROGRESSES. And thankfully I took note of his caution.  As for the rest of that post - I think I covered that point where he proposed that he was, in fact an ANONYMOUS BLIND REVIEWER.  Golly.  Thankfully he's basing his review of his own hard work on that Terrible Kind of Trial at Replicating.  BABY.  And being blind he's  under no obligation to refer to facts. 

THANKFULLY.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

picowatt

Rosemary,

Do all of your "collaborators" agree with your assertion that no current can flow through a function generator?

PW

Rosemary Ainslie

Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2012, 11:17:07 AM
Rosemary,

Do all of your "collaborators" agree with your assertion that no current can flow through a function generator?

PW

We do not measure an input of  current from the function generator.  On the contrary.  It seems that current is being returned there.

Rosemary