Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 787185 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1080 on: March 17, 2012, 01:11:51 AM »
You may be right about the battery type, but to date, I have never seen Rosemary make that a requirement, have you?

Rosemary suggested that smaller capacity batteries could be used. From a technical point of view, what is your objection to a 2 amp-hour battery?

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1081 on: March 17, 2012, 02:03:07 AM »
You may be right about the battery type, but to date, I have never seen Rosemary make that a requirement, have you?

Rosemary suggested that smaller capacity batteries could be used. From a technical point of view, what is your objection to a 2 amp-hour battery?

Well, if Rose says it could work, then she is not sure of it. Its not a fact yet that it will work.  Details.  ;)

There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?  ;)   

Lets say for example, we have a dime and the earth.  If we try to pump electrons into the dime and measured the current from start till full, and then we do the same with the earth, which test would have shown more current flow for how long? When dealing with HF AC and batteries, Im sure there are things to find out.

My casual point is, it may be easier for the larger batteries to take on a charge compared to a smaller battery, just because of the vast differences in the reservoirs.

With the batteries, I cant say this is fact or not.  But if the 2ah test does not work, those batteries will be in question. Better to do it right and gitter dun already. Then if it does work, if the interest was there to find out, try the 2ah and see if things are different.

If it doesnt work if you try the 2ah first, you dont really have the choice of not buying both sets of batteries to come to an absolute conclusion.


There is a name for it.  Ripple    ;) That is the difference.  And it could be enough to make a difference in this circuit claim. So why take the chance? With so much invested already.  Its up to you.  I wont argue this any further. I dont have more reasons to.

Mags


Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1082 on: March 17, 2012, 02:06:18 AM »
The batteries are silver calcium, not silver oxide as I said mistakenly. Thanks Kitty
Ok, that is settled. all in 1 post.  ;)

Mags

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1083 on: March 17, 2012, 02:27:27 AM »
Guys - NOTA BENE

. If, subsequent to publication of a paper - an author finds his claim is incorrect then he is required to withdraw publication
. This to uphold the principle and integrity required, not only of that published scientist but of claims related to all scientific findings
. Glen Lettenmaier - who here hides behind the identity of Fuzzy Tom Cat published the following on his Scribd File
. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
. This CLAIMS to be a replication of an earlier COP>17 test - as detailed in the introduction.
. He subsequently DENIES that it is a replication
. Therefore, by rights, he needs must withdraw that publication.
. I would STRONGLY advise anyone reading here to copy that opening paragraph
. This, because being unprincipled he is likely, retrospectively, to modify or delete this subsequent to this post.
. I have - pro temp - made my own copy of this.
. It unequivocally states that it is a replication of an earlier COP>17 test.

Therefore IF he is now stating that it is NOT a replication then he NEEDS MUST REMOVE THAT PUBLICATION.

Moving on

. You will notice that my name is first on that list of authors.  This indicates that I'm what is known of as 'first author'.
. As first author it is acknowledged that the paper was initiated, motivated and guided by me.
. I, in fact, wrote two thirds of that paper in conjuction with another author.
. Harvey Gramm wrote an astonishing one third of it -  related to entirely extraneous principles
. All of which should have been omitted or subjected to some kind of editorial paring as it was excessive.
. The results of those tests were averaged in an entirely inappropriate and non-standard convention which I resisted.
. This was done deliberately to average the results down as they were, in fact, greater than the stated COP>4
. That paper was rejected.  We were required to submit to TIE within the IEEE group of publications.
. This required a rewrite which paper was then published on my own Scribd file.

added

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1084 on: March 17, 2012, 02:28:34 AM »
. Scribd authorities cannot deny the right to any one or all of those collaborators publishing - wherever they like
. Provided only that its collaboration is acknowledged.  In other words it acknowledges all authors
. This under the protection of rules related to collaborative publications.
. Glen Lettenmaier must have advised Scribd authorities that this was exclusively his own work
. That it did not fall under the rules of a collaboration
. Because I was advised under threat of possible action against me - that my publication of the paper was DISALLOWED
. Effectively Glen has STOLEN ownership of a paper in which he has not written a SINGLE sentence.
. And not a one of us can publish or access this - our own paper and our own work -  on Scribd without first taking this matter to Court. 
. An international action on this would require an expensive litigation procedure that I am entirely reluctant to engage in.

IF Glen Lettenmaier no longer claims this as a replication then he is claiming it as his discovery.  In either event he needs must withdraw that paper.  THEN he can claim what he likes.  Because my name will NOT then be associated with his duplicity.  Unfortunately, right now, and notwithstanding the clear and wanton deceptions related to this - my name is INTIMATELY related to his.  It is a matter of enduring shame that I ever engaged with a man who is so entirely lacking in principle.

The ultimate irony of this is that  I am accused - in page after page - by him - of being duplicitous.  I've said this before.  God help us all.  I haven't even touched on the thread that he and Harvey Gramm started on Energetic Forum where they publicly CLAIMED that their earlier results were ERRONEOUS and that they could not longer support that early claim.  Nor can I prove it.  They've REMOVED all those posts and now use it as an alternative hate blog against me.  LOL.  It is all too disgusting to speak of.  Yet it seems I must speak of it.  It is my opinion that Glen Lettenmaier is a scoundrel.  But that is with the caveat that it is ONLY my opinion.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1085 on: March 17, 2012, 02:36:42 AM »
Guys - those are the facts.  It would entirely dominate this thread to engage in a discussion of it.  I'm only recording it here as my rights to advise you all of my own position and under some crying need to do something to salvage this history and my reputation along with it.  I am entitled to defend my good name.  It would have been easier for me to make this information available under PM's to Magsy - as he has asked for clarification.  But I wanted no part of 'whispers'.  Therefore have I made my stance public.  As Glen is trying to dominate this thread with his own opinions.  It is as clear as daylight that the man is utterly unprincipled and that he is trying to kill off this thread.  I assure you all.  Those of you who object to his continually posting about the issue from whichever stand that he tries to occupy - that the ONLY way to manage this is to IGNORE his posts.  He is driven to destroy this thread.  He is determined to usurp this technology.  Strangely, he seems to think that his tactics are likely to succeed.  Else why would he do this?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1086 on: March 17, 2012, 02:43:37 AM »
Rosemary, you wrote:

Quote
4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.
I agree. I have suggested a 2 amp-hour sealed lead acid battery.

What type of battery and amp-hour rating would you be considering for this test?

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1087 on: March 17, 2012, 02:47:09 AM »
There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?  ;)   

I have an answer for that question, but let's give Rosemary herself an opportunity to speak to the question of battery type and minimum amp-hour rating.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1088 on: March 17, 2012, 02:53:15 AM »
Poynty Point.  This is my proposed test.  I've looked everywhere.  Why are you not commenting?

SO  AGAIN.  Here's the proposed with the omission of the 555 test as we'll be using an ungrounded plug for the function generator.

. We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.
. Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

Rosie Pose
 :(

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1089 on: March 17, 2012, 03:02:41 AM »
And Guys, I see that the preferred battery is being discussed.

I will need to talk to some experts about this and possibly even our manufacturers.  My intention is to find those that can reliably generate a strong current flow in line with it's ratings.  When I've found such I'll post details of it here.  My hope is to get these donated again.  It's all in the interests of open source and I'm reasonably satisfied that those batteries will be well advertised.  So.  Hold your horses.  I'll see what I can come up with.

Unless one of you lot can do this for me?  Or in conjunction with me?  Either way.  I think we should look into all options.

Kindest regards,
Rosie ;D

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1090 on: March 17, 2012, 03:03:02 AM »
Poynty Point.  This is my proposed test.  I've looked everywhere.  Why are you not commenting?

You missed it then. Reply #1078

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1091 on: March 17, 2012, 03:08:23 AM »
No Poynty Point.  That post has nothing to do with me.  Nor, for that matter has this.  I thought we'd undertaken some rules here Poynty. I am under no obligation to address any posts that are not addressed to me.  And I certainly WON'T acknowledge them when my own posts are IGNORED.  Kindly NOTE the amended list.  And then COMMENT.  Then I'll comment on your proposed amendments.  You see how it works Poynty?  That way you'll not be in any danger of talking to yourself.  And that way I'll find that I'm not wasting my time when I post here.

You missed it then. Reply #1078

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1092 on: March 17, 2012, 03:12:30 AM »
No Poynty Point.  That post has nothing to do with me.  Nor, for that matter has this.  I thought we'd undertaken some rules here Poynty. I am under no obligation to address any posts that are not addressed to me.  And I certainly WON'T acknowledge them when my own posts are IGNORED.  Kindly NOTE the amended list.  And then COMMENT.  Then I'll comment on your proposed amendments.  You see how it works Poynty?  That way you'll not be in any danger of talking to yourself.  And that way I'll find that I'm not wasting my time when I post here.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, I don't understand. That post's first line is this:

"Rosemary, some points that require clarification:"

Is that not addressing you?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1093 on: March 17, 2012, 03:16:58 AM »
That is NOT the bullet scheduled list that I'm referring to.  I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER related to my list scheduled above.  Not even the amendment you seem to require of numbering those items.  I get the distinct impression that you're passing over the required changes that I propose.  And I'm inclined to think that this is deliberate.  Are my proposals simply to be ignored?  That's a bit harsh Poynty Point.

I think you'll agree that I need to cater to Harti's 'grounding' concerns.  I've done so.  There is, therefore, no need for the 555 test.  I would have thought?

Again,
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, I don't understand. That post's first line is this:

"Rosemary, some points that require clarification:"

Is that not addressing you?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1094 on: March 17, 2012, 03:21:15 AM »
And may I add this. 

This post of yours Poynty Point is entirely COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.  IF you have any concerns at all SHARE THEM.  Do not try and put my competence at test.  It is tiresome and insulting.  We are not here to 'dance to your tune'.  We're here to discuss and engage.  Nothing else.  I thought we'd agreed to OSTENSIBLY drop our 'agendas' in the interest of furthering this discussion.  Therefore?  Kindly keep your comments appropriate.

Rosie Posie,
 8)
I have an answer for that question, but let's give Rosemary herself an opportunity to speak to the question of battery type and minimum amp-hour rating.