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 799830 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1095 on: March 17, 2012, 03:48:35 AM »
Rosemary,

Please review the following comments on your complete proposed protocol. I hope you don't mind, but I've numbered your points for easier reference.


Quote
1) 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.
OK.

Quote
2) Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
I agree, the lower the rating, the less time will be required to complete the tests. As a side note, I have no preference as to battery type.

Quote
3) 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 output.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
4) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
5) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
OK.

Quote
6) 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.
OK.

Quote
7) 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.
Please, for the record, state what your claim is for this battery drawdown test.

Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

Quote
8] We then recharge all those batteries.
OK.

Quote
9) We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
OK.

Quote
10) We re-run those tests. This to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.
OK.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1096 on: March 17, 2012, 04:17:58 AM »
Poynty - your points 2 - 3 and 4 DEFINITELY need more clarity.  If you can manage this feel free.  I think you know what I'm inferring.  Else I'll tackle it on Sunday.  It'll take more time and energy than I can manage at the moment.

Regarding the battery draw down test.  That also needs more clarity.  It relates to the the proposed current path that I've tried to detail in an earlier post here and that was also rather overlooked.  I'm not 'punting' the thesis.  I'm trying to show you all WHY I insist ONLY on the anomaly that relates to our measurements.  Please read it Poynty.  But I need to elaborate on it.  But also.  I think I've finally found a way of explaining this that you guys - electronic experts - can understand.  I hope so.  It seems somewhat clearer when I analyse it like that.  Let me knw.  We absolutely CANNOT claim that the battery lasts forever.  Yet that's CERTAINLY what the measurements state.  What we know is that the batteries outlast a control.  Significantly.  Which is why I'm happy to assert a partial loss.  And unable to claim a complete gain as required - apparently - by those measurements.

At least READ those posts of mine.  I'm relying on this.  Of all our contributors - only you and PhiChaser are likely to be interested.

Regards
Rosie
 :)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1097 on: March 17, 2012, 04:30:25 AM »
@AbbaRue: It's nice to see that you got the point of the video demonstration. I hope you watched _all_ the videos, and that you have sufficient electronic knowledge to understand what the significance is of inserting a capacitor in series with the FG. I suggest that Rosemary try this on her system, since we know that it won't affect the signal generator's switching of the mosfets, it will only interrupt the DC current path through the FG.
@Mags: Did you watch _all_ the videos? It doesn't sound like it.
You are making statements like you are flailing around looking for something to grip onto. The circuit is exactly as I show in the diagram in the later videos, the monitoring points are clearly indicated, and the reduced battery voltage makes the FG's contribution obvious, whereas the offset needed to display the contribution on Rosemary's scope traces hides what is really happening unless you look very closely at the channel offset values on the screenshots.


And I find it completely hilarious that Rosemary wants somebody to withdraw or retract something, when SHE HERSELF has STILL NOT RETRACTED THE CLAIMS made in the following quote:
Quote
We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

I also find it completely hilarious that NOBODY, or at least nobody who is talking, who has ACTUALLY BUILT and TESTED, or even rigorously simulated, Rosemary's various circuits, has been able to reproduce her "overunity" claims, even while reproducing some of her measurements. And the people who support her currently have not built her devices nor tested anything like them, evidently. And the people  who have supported her in the past, like Astweth, like Harvey, even like Glen..... no longer support her claims.

Why is that, I wonder?

(Not really. It's because her claims are bogus.)

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5883
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1098 on: March 17, 2012, 04:38:27 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)



He was letting you make the decision as to what batteries can be used. I think it is a courtesy to you from him.  But if you havent tried these 2ah batteries yet Rose, then we cannot assume that the circuit will work to your specifications for sure.

It is your call really.  Its your baby. ;)

But what if it doesnt work for them with these 2ah batteries? Then we are at square one, with your approval be satisfied with the results by suggesting that the batteries will work. that will be the story afterwards. ;)

Mags


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1099 on: March 17, 2012, 04:41:06 AM »
@AbbaRue: you speak of scope probe leads picking up noise and showing that instead of circuit behavior. You must then explain why my circuit doesn't oscillate when I change to the mosfets that require more gate charge to switch, and you really should look at the photos of Rosemary's circuit as tested that made those scope shots of hers. Stray oscillations due to rat's nest wiring? Any circuit designer will warn you about that in a mosfet amplifier..... especially with casually parallelled mosfets.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1100 on: March 17, 2012, 04:51:37 AM »
He was letting you make the decision as to what batteries can be used. I think it is a courtesy to you from him.  But if you havent tried these 2ah batteries yet Rose, then we cannot assume that the circuit will work to your specifications for sure.

It is your call really.  Its your baby. ;)

But what if it doesnt work for them with these 2ah batteries? Then we are at square one, with your approval be satisfied with the results by suggesting that the batteries will work. that will be the story afterwards. ;)

Mags

Magsy I've answered this.  I'll repost it. 

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

I was not objecting to the discussion. Only the fact the tone of his 'challenge'.  I've addressed that too.  But so has Poynty.  LOl

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1101 on: March 17, 2012, 05:09:28 AM »
LOL TK,

I see this now.  My open admission of an math error requires a public retraction of all claims made on this technology as it represents a severe felony intended to defraud the public of their money.  While Glen Lettenmaiers theft of an entire paper represents a minor infringement of copyright and requires no retraction at all.  The more so as this minor infringement was only managed on the representation of affidavits to the Scribd authorities that the paper under question represents his own work exclusively.  And then.  Come to think of it.  He's denied the claims published in that paper.  Even more cause not to retract it.  Else people would start assuming that he's principled.  God forbid.

Rosie Pose



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1102 on: March 17, 2012, 05:15:44 AM »
Your "open admission" of a math error? Do you mean when you said your "calculations may have been a tad out" without specifying which ones, how they were "out" and what the corrected values are?

No, that's not a retraction or an open admission.

To refresh your memory, you are STILL CLAIMING that your circuit delivered 25 million Joules to 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. And this is more than a "tad out", it is in fact "out" by a factor of something like SEVENTY FIVE TIMES, and the conclusion, that your battery didn't contain enough energy to do it, is FALSE. And since you are still making the claim.... it is a LIE.

Now let me see you admit these things, and THAT will be a proper retraction.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1103 on: March 17, 2012, 05:17:52 AM »
Your "open admission" of a math error? Do you mean when you said your "calculations may have been a tad out" without specifying which ones, how they were "out" and what the corrected values are?

No, that's not a retraction or an open admission.

To refresh your memory, you are STILL CLAIMING that your circuit delivered 25 million Joules to 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. And this is more than a "tad out", it is in fact "out" by a factor of something like SEVENTY FIVE TIMES, and the conclusion, that your battery didn't contain enough energy to do it, is FALSE. And since you are still making the claim.... it is a LIE.

Now let me see you admit these things, and THAT will be a proper retraction.

Is this your opinion?  Tk?  It's very interesting. 
With all my love,

Rosie Posie

 :-*

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1104 on: March 17, 2012, 05:23:26 AM »
No, it's your claim, Rosemary. Once again:
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

True, or not? Which parts are wrong, how are they wrong, and what is the correction?


IS A JOULE REALLY A WATT PER SECOND?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1105 on: March 17, 2012, 05:26:20 AM »

I also find it completely hilarious that NOBODY, or at least nobody who is talking, who has ACTUALLY BUILT and TESTED, or even rigorously simulated, Rosemary's various circuits, has been able to reproduce her "overunity" claims, even while reproducing some of her measurements. And the people who support her currently have not built her devices nor tested anything like them, evidently. And the people  who have supported her in the past, like Astweth, like Harvey, even like Glen..... no longer support her claims.

Why is that, I wonder?

(Not really. It's because her claims are bogus.)

And as for this?  I think that the Scribd paper most CERTAINLY shows reproducibility of our claim.  Check it out.  It's VERY specific.  And what other 'men'? - which is a grossly loose and generalised application of the term - are there that no longer support me?- other than 'people' (another gross abuse of the term) such as HARVEY AND ASHTWETH AND GLEN?  I think that's about the lot.  And we all know what their motives are.  Ashtweth CLAIMED that he was involved in writing that paper.  As does Glen.  And poor Harvey only managed to add so much extraneous information that - had that paper been published - I would have had to pay a penalty of some many thousands of rands. 

Golly.
Again and as ever, your very own
Rosie, Posie
Pose.

 :-*

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1106 on: March 17, 2012, 05:28:48 AM »
No, it's your claim, Rosemary. Once again:
True, or not? Which parts are wrong, how are they wrong, and what is the correction?


IS A JOULE REALLY A WATT PER SECOND?

I've given this question all the attention that it deserves. You are littering this thread with your irrelevancies.  And it is detracting from it.

Rosie Pose.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1107 on: March 17, 2012, 05:30:26 AM »
The word you're looking for Mags (I think) is libel: "libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed"

Yep, that's probably it...

Um, anybody know where to get cheap 12v batteries, mosfets, and signal generators? (Do I NEED the 'math' function for this to work?)
I think because we (our modern world) have the circuit designing software, that not enough people have tried to actually physically build Rosemary's circuit. I would like to satisfy myself on the matter, I just have no idea how I will afford 6 identical 12v batteries. Or a signal generator... How much do the mosfets cost? Do I need two scopes (four channels?)?

A regular reader of this obnoxiously long thread ;)

PC

P.S. It seems like there is the beginning of a consensus here for some 'definitive' tests?

Let's see.... you are such an avid electronic hobbyist that you have now decided, finally, to go out and purchase some basic bench test equipment. That's excellent. I hope you begin at the beginning with Rosemary's circuit and claims... like I did.

You might be interested, before you start accusing people of libel, to go to my YT channel and watch ALL of my videos concerning Rosemary Ainslie, her claims, and the work of several people, some of whom are still looking in and posting here. Most of them begin with the heading "Electric OU" in the title.

By the way, the IRFPG50 Mosfet that I bought today cost me 6.40 US plus tax. The last batch I bought I got from DigiKey in a lot of 10 so I think the price was only about 50 bucks for the lot.

And I think.... that if you are asking these questions... that you have a LOT to learn, and I  know that you will have fun doing it. Good luck. Watch my videos, if you can stand it. Some of them go to a very basic level to try to explain to other people what is happening: This is ON, this is OFF.....


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1108 on: March 17, 2012, 05:32:46 AM »
I've given this question all the attention that it deserves. You are littering this thread with your irrelevancies.  And it is detracting from it.

Rosie Pose.

You are talking about power and energy measurements in a device which you CLAIM has put 25 million Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes, and you clearly do not understand what a Joule is... and you think that's irrelevant to this thread?

You really are a piece of work.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1109 on: March 17, 2012, 05:37:12 AM »
Everyone please note:

I have ALWAYS encouraged anyone with the skill and the wit and the kit to build and test Rosemary's claims for themselves. Go ahead and do it. Show your work, share it, and there is enough expertise here so that you can get it right. Just do it.

I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes using her circuit, as she has claimed she has done, over and over.