And guys, just to get back to that COP INFINITY number.  Romerouk's device is able to keep going over extended periods without any further input of any energy at all.  And while all is turning it's also driving a light load.  In terms of classical physics the amount of energy that has been delivered must equal the amount of energy that is dissipated.  Therefore, by rights the turning of the rotar and the lighting of the light must eventually grind to a halt and die out respectively.  Clearly they do not.  the actual Joules expended over a 5.5 hour experiment is calculable.  As are the amount of Joules required to charge the caps equally so.

Let us assume that the device can run - uninterrupted - for say, - 1 hour.  So take the product of the volts of the battery and the amperage of the energy injected into the caps.  Then multiply it by the brief time it takes to charge the caps.  Possibly 80 seconds at its outside most.  That's the Joules value - and that's the power input into the system.  So.  Let's assume a 12 volt supply and a generous 4 amps current flow - vi.  Then for the 'dt' part of that equation - add in that 80 seconds to charge the cap.  That's 12 volts * 4 amps * 80 seconds = 3 840 Joules or thereby.  Now.  All that's needed is to take the product of the wattage dissipated by the lights because that's got a known value.  Then start multiplying.  60 seconds for 60 minutes for ..... what?  1 hour? 2 hours? 5 hours?  Let's assume 20 watts dissipated as light.  That's 20 * 60 * 60 * 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 ...... Now we're already at 360KW.  So.  3840 Joules input for 360 000 watts output?  That's most certainly COP INFINITY.   And we haven't even factored in the energy required to turn the rotor. 

There is no question that Romero's device is at COP INFINITY.  I am amazed that anyone would find cause to question it.  Correctly the question should be this.  IF energy delivered by a supply is depeleted anywhere at all in the circuit then how come this gadget is able to run beyond 5 seconds at best?  MH.  With the utmost respect - you're on a hiding to nowhere with your latest objections.

At its least - this evidence will need to be resolved outside the known paradigms related to the transfer of energy.  And if anyone at all accuse me of being 'off topic' - I assure you I am NOT.  It is very much on topic.  It has everything to do with our own claim.  And our own claim will not just 'go away'.  Where our device is likely to be of value - is in the ouput of higher wattage values.  At least until the rotor is able to drive a bigger load.  Which I'm reasonably satisfied will be the next step. 

What is evident in both tests is this.  Current can be induced to flow continuously provided only that the circuit is able to maintain a state of imbalance that the potential difference across a circuit can be retained.  All of which begs a revision of the actual properties of current flow.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited.  Revised the input numbers to tally with the video evidence.

AN OPEN LTTER TO POYNTY POINT

Dear Darren,

I've gone over your post.  I've re-read most of what you've written.  I need you to pay attention.  The ONLY way to determine the amount of energy from a supply is by determining the amperage flow from the supply times the voltage across the supply times time.  There is no other correct method known to classical science.

We have done this.  On all our tests.  And all of them show COP INFINITY.  It's that simple.  In other words - there is more energy being returned to the supply than delivered from the supply.  Now.  You can argue the relevance of our results in terms of anything that you want.  The point of departure from classical prediction is precisely when the sum of those values - those returning voltages across the shunt - EXCEED the voltages from the supply and they 'turn negative'.  Then you can calculate the shunt at any value at all.  There is still more energy being returned than being delivered.  Either that or all our measurements are wrong.  And if they're wrong then they're wrong on the most sophisticated instruments available.  Which is highly unlikely - the more so as the more sophisticated the measurement the greater the evident benefit.

Then just consider this.  We have HUGE capacity in our batteries.  But we have now been running those batteries for over 8 months.  There is absolutely NO evident loss of voltage across any of them.  Does that not speak to some kind of proof?  We recharged 2 of them after the fire - but that was it.  Then consider this.  We have taken the water to boil were there was ALSO clear evidence of an increase in battery voltage despite a clear INCREASE in the wattage output over the load.  Those events were simultaneous.  Then consider this.  Look at Romero's set up and read my conservative power analysis related to this. 

What I'm trying to tell you is that you are looking at evidence all over the place that is absolutely in defiance of known physical paradigms.  And you really need to take this on board.  What you are not asking is this.  "Could it be that Rosemary is telling the truth?  Could it be that Romero's device is proof positive?  Could I have been WRONG?'  That's the challenge.  You do not hesitate to advise us all that we're wrong.  But you need to take a good look.  You're like St Paul charging about the place to crucify claims and claimants.  But unlike him you've not yet seen the light.  You've  not taken the evidence on board.  And if I am lying or misrepresenting the facts,  then there are an awful lot of people who have witnessed this who are also collaborating in that lie.

And what's doubly sad is this.  You have already found those contestable values on your own simulation.  It is telling you that there's a negative sum in those voltages.  It's also telling you that you've exceeded unity.  In fact, precisely because those values are negative - it's telling you that you've actually got COP INFINITY.  But you're even inclined to dismiss the relevance of your own numbers.  What does that say?  Not only does PSpice give you the tools to make the circuit results.  It also gives you the evidence.  I have been advised by some considerable authority - that if a simulation can duplicate our numbers then there is actually no more evidence required.  In other words our apparatus is REDUNDANT.  Yet you're questioning those simulated numbers as dismissively as the test evidence.  It is simply not logical.  And I'm the first to pay tribute to your talents.  I always have.  And I'm satisfied that you're capable of better.  I believe you need to look again at the evidence that is happening everywhere now.  Golly.  We're already getting replications - alternate applications - and that with ease.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Guys, I have appealed to Harti to apply moderation to this thread.  He is allowing a level of comment that is breaching his own forum rules.  He not only is ignoring the request but has written to advise me that he's thinking of closing this thread.  He claims that we have to build the circuit to run without the functions generator and that he suspects that there may be measurement errors.

I cannot comment on the validity of this concern.  But what I can report on is this.  If it is possible to duplicate our numbers on a simulation then there are ostensibly no errors in our own measurements.  We have now got undertakings from two forum members to run their own simulations.  And I'm still to hear from some others that are not associated with this forum.  There are also some academics who are going to do this.  Some more biased against than others.  It will be interesting.  But what I do know is that if there are ANY that show results consistent with our own - even the one - and provided that the schematics comply to our own specifications - then from that time on - our own test results WILL BE CONCLUSIVE.  It's that simple.  We can, from then on, ignore the test apparatus and simply MOVE FORWARD.  And this assurance has been given me across the board.  So.  That's where I'll be concentrating.

And if these simulated results comply to our own test results - then it also means, as I've been saying all along, that Faraday TRUMPS Kirchhoff.  And that also will PUT PAID to our constraints required for the transfer of electric energy.  And I confidently predict that those simulations will be forthcoming.  Poynty has already pointed us at the evidence.   

Whether or not I am able to post those results remains to be seen.  It seems that we are invited to report on tests at our peril.  Protections that were promised are denied - and our reputations are then at the mercy of deliberate moderation neglect.  Hardly what was offered.  Anyway.  No doubt we'll find out in due course.  If I am banned - then please just go to my blog.  What is being allowed here is appalling.  My comfort is that it seems to be generate more support from you all than I realised.  And I am intensely grateful for those off forum communications. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

I think I can count on the most of you not reading it too closely.  lol

Rosemary

You should of stuck with your instincts darl.   
1)  It WAS long
2)  You come across VERY embittered
3)  Whilst I think that energeticforum 'personalities' like FTC, Ash and FatLady are the weasels of this planet....YOU just have to let it all go.

You will never hear what you want from them and there will be no vindication on either side.  It's all just nasty and youre looking kinda whacky to keep going so long with it.

Lets face it...these forums attract some very strange people with ludicrous theories of FBI/CIA killing folk and buying out good honest Joes that just wanna bring us a light bulb that runs forever damnit!!  LOL  OMG, you have to laff.  I mean, what makes more sense?  The CIA is running around killing HONEST folk and taking car batteries to the testicles of inventors OR the majority of people that inhabit this forum are from poorly educated, low income suburbs that thrive on conspiracy and Alien nonsense that has no basis in fact???  Yes there are some of us that do OK but many are actually chasing 'free' energy for the dreams of riches also.  Half of the 'inventors' who supposedly went to prison because the "Goverment locked them up" didnt get there because they made a free energy device!!  They were in prison because they were dirty little con men who bilked investors outta cash with promises of electric engines that "ran forever" only to be find out that the table was full of batteries.  These crooks don't help the OU cause but they were what they were...filthy LIARS.

Don't get me wrong, many will say after this post that I am a company man or Corporate troll (so funny) and whilst I may have lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria (joke) this is not true....I strive for OU like everyone else.  The difference is, that I dont indulge myself in conspiracy theory and bulldust that can't be proven.

AS YOU SO APTLY STATED IN YOUR BLOG - MOST PEOPLE ON FORUMS CANNOT EVEN CALCULATE POWER IN/POWER OUT CORRECTLY!!  (Let alone conduct their experiments in a scientific and methodical manner).  How do they ever expect to accomplish anything or garner respect from the world when this field is already so ridiculed as being full of crackpots??!!!!

Anyhoo...you have a lovely day.

No ElectricGoose, I am certainly NOT embittered.  I really do know the value publicity and I also know that bad publicity has and will do NOTHING to halt this technology.  On the contrary.  Presicely  because it's that bad - it's entirely discredited.  Certainly by thinking people.  All I'm trying alert everyone to is the possibility that these forums are NOT actually promoting but 'hindering' overunity.  And I do NOT understand why Harti wants me off from here.  At least our technology is still proven.  I would have thought that even our technology needs some kind of protection from outright denial - notwithstanding the evidence.

But there you go.  Again.  Not bitter at all.  There has been extraordinary progress.  I know this.  We've got a few more small hurdles and I think we may actually get there - to outright acceptance.  And I'm still fighting my corner.  I'm happy to fight this through for as long as I can.  And I also know that my contributions are not harming the general cause.  On the contrary.

Take care
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

No worries Rosemary.  I wish you the very best in your ventures.

And guys, I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere.  And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity. The use of the term COP INFINITY is when the measure of energy from a supply is less than the energy returned to the supply.  Then the co-efficient of performance can no longer be related to 1.  That is what is evident.  It has been publicly demonstrated which is all that is required for proof.  But it has also been video'd and has been carefully recorded in a published report.  Subsequent to that report there has been a revised schematic on a simulated program that CONFORMS IN ITS ENTIRETY to the results that we achieved on our demonstrated device.  And the circuit that is applicable to all this has been posted by Groundloop and now entirely conforms to the required.

The fact that a simulation of this conforms at all is significant.  It not only endorses our own findings but it shows that - in fact - these results are achievable within the context of proven classical measurement protocols. 

That this thread is being 'flamed' at all - is because Harti is allowing it.  He has advised me privately, that he's thinking of 'closing' this thread because he sees that our measurements may be wrong.  Which no doubt explains why Fuzzy is allowed to post here at all.  It's his speciality to kill my threads.  I have addressed every concern that Stefan has mentioned.  With conclusive argument. If, notwithstanding, this thread is locked - IF that happens - and IF I am, indeed banned, then may I impose on you all to consider his reasons for this?  On a suspicion of incorrect measurements?  It seems strange.  I would then confidently predict that when the honeymoon period is over with Romero - that he too will be disgraced or banned.  I do hope you guys will rally.  You really need to take care of him.  And I think you need to pay especial attention to the motives of these forums.  One hopes that they're intended to promote any OU technology.

Meanwhile I'll leave you with this thought.  Whenever I am banned or whenever my threads are locked - it's a consequence of Fuzzy being allowed free reign to do his worst.  Why is he given that much license? 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED
And edited spelling

I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere.  And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


There are hundreds of readers, members, engineers and academics that "DO NOT AGREE" at all with your testing and evaluation of your experimental device because it's not in any scientific method known that can be reproduced to anyone's satisfaction for a verification of a COP> INFINITY .

You Rosemary, as a boasting proxy inventor that has claimed submitting many documents for engineering and academic "PEER" review, you Rosemary of all people most certainly know all the mandated requirements for a scientific verification of FACTS.

You Rosemary, are denying everyone in existence the chance to do any verification testing and evaluation on this COP> INFINITY circuit and even have posted a 100%"FALSE", fake and inaccurate circuit http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links  for a WILD GOOSE chase or Chinese fire drill for anyone trying to replicate your findings by design.


MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS -

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

7) A "LIVE streaming broadcast" of the device testing event in real time for 48 hours minimum untouched .... all that's required is a registering for a FREE LIVE streaming broadcast account and a web camera showing the claim of COP > INFINITY




The above items 1 through 7 should be a minimum to claim a COP > INFINITY ......

If the above seven items cannot be done in a excepted verifiable Scientific Method .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29

Replication ( Scientific Method )

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental
trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.

The claims and statements made here by you Rosemary of a COP > INFINITY mean nothing only FALSE and INACCURATE and maybe subject to the notification by myself and countless others of this fact to ALL existing internet alternative energy forums and social media outlets, if you Rosemary Ainslie refuse again and again to comply to the basic minimum disclosure for a scientific method of verification of YOUR CLAIMS.


FuzzyTomCat


 

AN OPEN LTTER TO POYNTY POINT
And if I am lying or misrepresenting the facts,  then there are an awful lot of people who have witnessed this who are also collaborating in that lie.

I do not think you are lying. I firmly believe (and have been able to illustrate several times) that you do not understand the facts, and therefore are misrepresenting them.

And what's doubly sad is this.  You have already found those contestable values on your own simulation.  It is telling you that there's a negative sum in those voltages.  It's also telling you that you've exceeded unity.  In fact, precisely because those values are negative - it's telling you that you've actually got COP INFINITY.  But you're even inclined to dismiss the relevance of your own numbers.  What does that say?  Not only does PSpice give you the tools to make the circuit results.  It also gives you the evidence.  I have been advised by some considerable authority - that if a simulation can duplicate our numbers then there is actually no more evidence required.  In other words our apparatus is REDUNDANT.  Yet you're questioning those simulated numbers as dismissively as the test evidence.  It is simply not logical.  And I'm the first to pay tribute to your talents.  I always have.  And I'm satisfied that you're capable of better.  I believe you need to look again at the evidence that is happening everywhere now.  Golly.  We're already getting replications - alternate applications - and that with ease.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

The numbers and results in the PSpice simulation are not lying. They are representative of the real-world wave forms.

There are three major steps involved in analyzing a circuit:

1) proper measurement
2) proper post-processing
3) proper interpretation of the results

Regarding your data from the demo video, steps 1) and 2) are a bit shaky and could be improved somewhat, but the biggest error I currently see is in step 3).

Again, with the CSR connected incorrectly in those tests, you must have a good hard look at your results, and consider retracting your claims made that were based on them.

.99

PS. Regarding the new configuration, please post some updated photos of both the top and bottom side of the perf board. Also, please indicate on a complete circuit diagram where the scope probes are being placed.

I do not think you are lying. I firmly believe (and have been able to illustrate several times) that you do not understand the facts, and therefore are misrepresenting them.
The numbers and results in the PSpice simulation are not lying. They are representative of the real-world wave forms.

There are three major steps involved in analyzing a circuit:

1) proper measurement
2) proper post-processing
3) proper interpretation of the results

Regarding your data from the demo video, steps 1) and 2) are a bit shaky and could be improved somewhat, but the biggest error I currently see is in step 3).

Again, with the CSR connected incorrectly in those tests, you must have a good hard look at your results, and consider retracting your claims made that were based on them.

.99

PS. Regarding the new configuration, please post some updated photos of both the top and bottom side of the perf board. Also, please indicate on a complete circuit diagram where the scope probes are being placed.

Ok Poynty.  I still can't post photos.  The PC's not back yet.  Hopefully soon.  Your own representation is correct except that the position of the scope probe is CHANGED.  If your results are 'for real' then I'm happy.  I assure you the CSR is now PRECISELY in line with the negative rail of the battery.   Picture it.  Negative terminal > wire > ground of the scope probe > shunt > scope probe > then ground from the signal generator > then the MOSFET's.  That's how I positioned it for the 'water to boil' test.  BUT.  The 'on' time of the duty cycle - nota bene - Poynty - the voltage is fractionally above zero for the duration.  Yet it took the temperature on the resistor element to 240 degrees centigrade.  Then I inserted the element into water.  0.7 litres.  Then also note that the final 20 degree rise in the water was managed in less than 10 minutes.  The level of voltage still the same.  The only thing that changed was the level of oscillation which increased with the frequency.  Which is consistent with the earlier series of posts I made about this.  Interestingly the battery voltage stabilised - no more 'flopping about' between a small range.  And it stabilised at the same voltage measured when I disconnected the system.

In fact - the only thing that is required in a simulation is that one can show a negative sum across the shunt voltage provided that the scope probes are as they're described here.  It should be possible on a simulation because that's consistent with our experimental results.  And so far your waveforms have been consistent with our own findings. 

I grant you that the results vary depending on where we put that ground of the functions generator.  But it only varies within a fraction and it's consistent with the shunt voltage.  The sum of the voltages still stay negative.  They're glued there.

Anyway.  I'll post those photos when I can.  But meantime they'll show exactly what I've reported here.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

edited for clarity.