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 832894 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1110 on: March 17, 2012, 05:43:06 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.
My dear TK - I think this needs a minor editing.  If you don't mind I'll attend to 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 as I keep claiming that she claims that she has done, over and over.

LOL

As ever,
Rosie Pose
 :-* :D

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1111 on: March 17, 2012, 05:52:19 AM »
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?

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?

Also, What battery voltage and signal level did Rose use in that particular circuit?
And what was the estimated power out at the load you have figured vs Roses claim of output to the load?

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?




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?

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 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.
 
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.

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


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1112 on: March 17, 2012, 06:23:57 AM »
Magsy - I never knew anything at all about the Mylow fiasco.  But what I can tell you as fact is that a very dear friend of mine is entirely satisfied that the 'fishing line' was 'put in' deliberately.  I'm not in a position to say - one way or another.  But he and his friends are satisfied that this was done.

What's confusing is that this 'perpetual motor' has now been claimed by a South African group (NOT US I HASTEN TO ADD) who - for all we know - are applying some of those Mylow principles.  In other words they were not put out by the debunk that TK presented.  Then you must remember this.  Cold fusion burst onto the scene in the late 80's.  It was VOCIFEROUSLY DENIED and EXPERIMENTALLY DISPROVED.  Yet it has now re-emerged and is being endorsed as a study by those at MIT as well as other HIGHLY accredited academies.  I think the lesson is this.  There is no way under God's sun that any new technologies will NOT be progressed - with or without 'nay sayers'. 

Also bear in mind that the nay sayers on the cold fusion number are now - to a man - utterly disgraced in the public eye.  TK will have a lot to answer to - in due course.  But for now his overriding drive is to entirely discredit both me and the technology.  And he ONLY knows these techniques of 'in your face rudeness'.  But what he hasn't realised yet is that too much of it - any excess - and the public start wondering what gives.  And this, in turn, allows a technology to be tested on its merits and NOT on the heresay of those that seem to have a compulsive need to DENY ALL.

Is my take.  Which also means - kudos to Poynty and to Harti.  They're allowing the facts to unfold.  Not the claims about those facts.  And that's actually how it should be.  What TK is doing is 'implying' that there's nothing to show.  But he's skewed his test.  He's like that Dr Vest who went to some lengths to disprove cold fusion.  You cannot 'disprove' a valid test.  Can't be done.  It WILL inevitably be tested by others.  You can't put a lid on it.  And IF there's merit in the claim - then it CAN be replicated.  Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1113 on: March 17, 2012, 07:08:40 AM »
hey rose

Yea, a lot of us were on Mylows case. From hand jobs, fishing lines to off balancing. He did it all. In the end there were multiple times that the fishing line was noticeable.

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.


"Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing."

Oh. Id like to read up on that.  ;)

Mags

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1114 on: March 17, 2012, 07:38:16 AM »
My dear TK - I think this needs a minor editing.  If you don't mind I'll attend to 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 as I keep claiming that she claims that she has done, over and over.

LOL

As ever,
Rosie Pose
 :-* :D

So these are not your words, or you have posted a correction somewhere and I haven't noticed? Link please.
(This is a quote from your post in this very thread, #666).
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.

Twenty five point six MILLION JOULES.  Your words, your claim, your lie, until you retract it.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1115 on: March 17, 2012, 08:36:52 AM »
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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote

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...
Quote

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.
Quote

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

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1116 on: March 17, 2012, 08:38:41 AM »
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

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1117 on: March 17, 2012, 08:45:43 AM »
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
 8)
« Last Edit: March 17, 2012, 10:31:04 AM by fuzzytomcat »

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1118 on: March 17, 2012, 08:52:14 AM »
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

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1119 on: March 17, 2012, 08:56:40 AM »
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

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1120 on: March 17, 2012, 09:18:41 AM »
And guys,

I'm likely not able to answer any further posts for the balance of the day.  But I caution you all to take note.  If there was any honour between either Tinsel Koala or Glen Lettenmaier - then they would both require me to continue with this thread and these proposed definitive tests.  What they are doing - with an increasing sense of desperation - is to impose pages of denial on these poor efforts of ours for a reasonable discussion - that the thread is predominantly unreadable.  If there was any sincere desire to find answers they would not dominate this discussion with the irrelevant and 'thin' excuses that take the focus away from our claim.  Their tactics are both clumsy and counter productive.

What is increasingly impossible to understand is that Harti is not only permitting it - but is positively encouraging it.  And I'm afraid that is a puzzle that only Harti can address.  At a guess this thread is more than 2 thirds pure traducement.  And it certainly is not less than 1 half.  Every time they post they are in breach of good manners, scientific research and the desire to explore any claims of over unity which - ostensibly - is the purpose of this forum.  I can do no more than apologise for the mess they make of my threads.  The fact is that these monsters have dogged my every step - from the get go and that they will never allow this a fair chance.  That in itself should speak volumes.

If they are concerned that this is bogus - then it will not be proved by alleging anything at all.  I am afraid that there are hidden mandates and hidden agendas that abound against any over unity claim.  And I can do nothing about so much that is hidden.  It is entirely unreasonable to suppose that either TK or Glen Lettenmaier will go to such extraordinary lengths to disclaim anything at all - unless it is somehow personally impacting on their lives.  And I suspect that it is.  Glen because he wants to claim ownership of this or some variant of this technology.  And TK because his identity and possibly his income is impacted.  Else this simply no longer makes any kind of sense. 

The day started off with a reasonable discussion on the requirements for a test to be conducted.  Three pages later I am still dealing with great washes of calumny - from a poster who hides behind an identity - that puts him out of reach of any kind of accountability.  And he claims that I am unethical.  It is absurd.  What I assure you is that their techniques are working.  And that all this is a disgrace to our over unity drive.  And unless some measures are put in to prevent this - then this thread is doomed.

Kindest regards
Rosemary.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1121 on: March 17, 2012, 02:01:05 PM »
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 and correct, Rosemary, or not? Your own words, or not? Calumny, Rosemary? These are YOUR WORDS. Is it ethical to make claims like this one, to fail to correct the errors, and to continue to make the absurd claim based on the errors? IS THAT ETHICAL?

What does my identity have to do with the false statements you make in the quote above?

Why do you not correct your math and your claim and your conclusion? You have had ample opportunity to do so.


TWENTY FIVE MILLION JOULES.... or NOT?

It's a very simple question.... that you have been dodging now for weeks, just as you won't answer Fuzzy about WHICH CIRCUIT WAS ACTUALLY USED.

Unethical for him to ask? Unethical for me to want you to correct your manifest errors? You have a funny definition of "ethical".. but then we've known that for some time, haven't we. I remember you on the Naked Scientists forum, lying about your patent, years ago.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1122 on: March 17, 2012, 02:08:35 PM »
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

Preserved for posterity. I am being accused of calumny and libel because I keep posting this quote of Rosemary's, which contains the basis of her entire set of claims. Be careful, Rosemary. You are telling lies, making false claims, and people who do such things shouldn't be talking about courts of law.

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.

25.6 MILLION JOULES, Rosemary. That is a lie, and you have not corrected it.

NOTE that I have shown -- PROVEN if you like -- several times in this thread alone, exactly what is wrong with your numbers and your calculations above. So you are lying YET AGAIN when you claim that I haven't done so, precisely and exactly, using your own data as reported here.

Am I wrong in my calculations and explanations? Isn't it funny how nobody has claimed that I am -- except you -- or pointed out where I went wrong. Isn't that funny? Since I am such a rabid debunker, a libeller, a thorn in your side? SHOW THAT I AM WRONG about your 25 point 6 million impossible Joules, then. Repeat your calculations and SHOW THAT I AM WRONG.

And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that I ALWAYS ENCOURAGE OTHERS to build and test Rosemary's circuit for themselves? Is that any way for someone who has an "agenda" to suppress research in "Free Energy" to behave? That I encourage open and comprehensive testing of HER EXACT CIRCUIT, not the one I've got but the one SHE HAS GOT, by people who actually DO know what they are doing and can lay out a circuit properly? Isn't that strange, that I am ALWAYS eager for testing, that I show my work in such clarity that anyone can reproduce what I've done easily, and that I stand by my calculations, or correct them when errors are found?

Is that really any way for a MONSTER to behave?

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1123 on: March 17, 2012, 08:30:57 PM »
Preserved for posterity. I am being accused of calumny and libel because I keep posting this quote of Rosemary's, which contains the basis of her entire set of claims. Be careful, Rosemary. You are telling lies, making false claims, and people who do such things shouldn't be talking about courts of law.

25.6 MILLION JOULES, Rosemary. That is a lie, and you have not corrected it.



Mr. Koala, I think you are caught in a trap of your own making.  You just want to be proven right, but it does not appear that you are going to get your full satisfaction out of Ms. Ainslee.  I suppose it feels good to be right, so I can see why you do what you do.  But being right by criticizing free energy devices is a little like shooting fish in a barrell.  Pick any free energy device, and point out that it cannot work, and you will always be right.  But what is the sport in this?  Do you like the shooting of the fish in the barrell?


I think your energies would be better spent assisting Rosemary in developing her overunity technology. 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1124 on: March 18, 2012, 01:00:53 AM »
Guys

We all need to address this.  I am trying to progress this Infinite co-efficient of performance claim.  There are those here who are doing their damnedest to prevent any discussion at all.  They are IMPOSING allegations and opinions that are detrimental to this technology and that is hardly likely to be in anyone's best interests and certainly NOT in the best interests of science.

However, it is only fair that everyone be given a 'fair chance'.  If TK and others - wish to air their views - or conduct experiments disproving our claim - then they should be allowed every opportunity to do so.  And they should also be entitled to a full and fair hearing - as are we.  But what is going on here cannot continue.

We may have come up with a solution.  I want Harti to consider this.  It is unlikely that he even reads here.  I think he may dip in occasionally - but he's not really that interested.  Therefore please, to those of you who read here and are also members and, obviously if you agree with this proposal could I impose on you to either email or PM him this post to ensure it's brought to his attention.

Let TK start his own thread.  Let him allege all he likes there about either me or about our experiment.  And then I can continue here in discussion with Poynty to determine the parameters required for our tests and why they're required.  That way one can get to some kind of finality.  And that way - whatever it is that TK manages - will be readily viewed by whoever needs to - as a reasonable counterargument to our own claim.

Failing which, I'm afraid that I needs must withdraw from this discussion.  It is now so far outside the bounds of good science or any kind of decency that I'd be crazy to continue with this exercise.  Under normal circumstances I should be given monitorship of the thread that I can keep it relevant.  And that is precisely what our detractors are trying to prevent.  Let TK have his say.  There is nothing to prevent this as there is nothing to stop him opening his own thread.  And then we can get some modicum of 'fair play' back into this discussion.  Unless any of you can propose anything else.  But that's the best we can come up with.

Kindest regards
Rosemary