Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 941505 times)

eatenbyagrue · « **Reply #1335 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:07:23 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 05:27:20 PM

@eatenbyagrue: I'm disappointed that you choose not to answer my direct questions from some posts ago. But not really too surprised, ttytt.

What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours. I am not sure what more I can answer.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1336 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:09:40 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 06:06:36 PM

Rosemary, as far as everyone here is concerned, it is your circuit and your team. You're quibbling over semantics.

What does NERD stand for anyway? There is no reference to it whatsoever in your first post in this thread.

NERD TECHNOLOGY IS THE NAME OF THIS THREAD. If you wish to discuss the RAT circuit then you must do so amongst yourselves. My own posts ONLY relate to the NERD technology.

Rosemary

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #1337 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:16:54 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 01:47:41 PM

Guys - was a bit tardy but have now sent a personal message to Glen Lettenmaier detailing a service address. I'll let you know if papers are served and what it is that he's claiming.

Let's wait and see. Frankly I'm delighted at his proposed action. For reasons that I've explained. It's possible that there may be some cause to counter sue - but I'm not really concerned either way. I just want that opportunity to defend this matter in Court where I'll be required to produce some experimental evidence. How great would that be? And all those experts required to comment. Can't wait. To defend what's alleged to be indefensible. What fun.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

This it to notify everyone that I received some information from a Rosemary Ainslie's PM address here, although this is not needed as I posted several times here she will be served personally. I also indicated this would be done in my time frame, not Rosemary's obviously she can't FUCKING read or understand at all. I just want to make my intentions public there is a past history here I'm told when some one had been in this same position with her, and there was a end he didn't see coming or around now to see.

This case I would estimate the time being up to a YEAR to do this properly for a win, and then Rosemary to appeal the verdict against her like the continued nonsense here which I would like to avoid with a strong case against her.

This won't be some half ass attempt like several "COP greater than INFINITY" papers we see with incorrect and false information, that was cobbled together in a couple of days, with errors all over the place in them.

My time is better spent on my web site and the "SCAMS AND SHAMS" page featuring Rosemary and Mylow, and let my heavy weights do their legal work in their time frame.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1338 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:22:55 PM »

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on March 21, 2012, 06:07:23 PM

What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours. I am not sure what more I can answer.

Hello eatenbyagrue. I'm reasonably certain that what TK is expecting is an outright endorsement of his traducements. He explained that libel is defensible if it is proven to be well founded. I believe you agreed with this as well. But what he's now asking is that you adjudicate on whether or not he's guilty of libel. In other words you're to adjudicate - one way or the other on the evidence of my 'mendacity' as he puts it. Frankly I think he's rather imposing on your legal expertise to solicit some free consultation. But if you're willing to offer this - then that's between you and him. For my part - I am acutely aware of how this must embarrass you and I can only apologise. I suspect that you've engaged here to entertain your interests in science. Instead of which there seems to be some imposition on you to exploit your expertise.

Whichever - eatenbyagrue - I am absolutely satisfied that you will get to the heart of the matter. And if you feel the need to endorse TK's opinion - it will certainly not change my own opinion of you. I am well aware that there may be a gross error in my calculations. But I have now exposed that sum to two acknowledged experts - explaining the full circumstances of the test. And they have both endorsed my numbers. Yet I may be wrong. Perhaps I explained it wrongly. But even then I'm not guilty of misrepresentation. That value has no part of our paper. It is absolutely NOT a part of our claim. It really does not matter if I'm wrong.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

evolvingape · « **Reply #1339 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:44:04 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 04:49:02 PM

I will be satisfied if the RAT circuit operates as I stated in my proposed protocol. If it can provide substantial power to the load for 50% longer than the control in BOTH runs, then it is a winner. PROVIDED that the RAT circuit maintains an equal or better temp profile compared to the Control.

Your proposed protocol as stated is a test to determine whether the RAT circuit will outperform the control circuit by 50%, while dissipating the same energy value at the load, and nothing more.

A test of the claim, which is COP = infinity must be a continual non interrupted run of the RAT circuit. Any intervention by you to stop the test invalidates the results, and does not prove the claim. If the RAT circuit eventually depletes to 10.5V or fails to maintain load energy dissipation it has failed and is underunity.

The purpose of the control is to verify that a continual DC signal to a known load will dissipate the energy available in the battery bank to power the circuit in a given time. This being the time interval between time zero and when the battery bank drops to 10.5V or when the power available to the load is no longer sufficient to maintain the stable temperature at the load and the temperature drops, whichever comes sooner.

Quote from: poynt99 on March 21, 2012, 04:49:02 PM

Depends what you mean by "efficient". If you mean how much power is delivered to the load compared to how much is wasted, then nothing is more efficient than a DC source connected directly to a load. Rosemary's circuit is at a disadvantage compared to the Control, simply because there are MOSFETs dissipating (wasting) power that is NOT getting to the load.

If that's not what you mean, then please explain.

.99

Both circuits, straight DC and Switched are 100% efficient and can be nothing less. Work done + losses = Energy In. The ratio of energy dissipated at load to heat "wasted" in the components is irrelevant at this point. Both will be different because they are different circuits with different components.

The claim is that the RAT circuit will be overunity fully replacing the prime mover energy which was stored in the battery bank at time zero, and that the circuit is COP = infinity in which case it will continue to dissipate energy at the load resistor for ever.

The only measurements we are interested in is the time it takes for the control to use up it's energy, and the time it takes for the RAT circuit to use up it's energy, while an identical load energy is being dissipated in both circuits continually.

The efficiency comparison result of both circuits will be calculated by:

RAT Runtime / Control Runtime = Efficiency Ratio

The load resistor will dissipate heat at a known measurable rate and therefore you will be able to calculate how long it will take at that load to consume the energy available in the batteries. The difference in runtime between the two circuits is the efficiency ratio of those circuits compared to each other.

To prove the claim the RAT circuit must continue to dissipate a known load well beyond what the battery'y bank is capable of providing. At an efficiency ratio of 5 you can suspect it might be overunity, at 10 it is likely to be overunity, at 100 you can be pretty sure it is overunity, at 1000 you can pretty safely say it is overunity, at 10000 yeah looking good, at 100000 still going...

See ?

RM

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1340 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:48:14 PM »

Quote from: SeaMonkey on March 21, 2012, 05:56:03 PM

You're quite welcome. I suspected that was the case.

You've shown us that spurious oscillations are easily
obtained. Are you attempting to illustrate that such
oscillations may be beneficial?

Or, are you simply demonstrating that they may detract
from circuit performance?

Neither, actually. I am attempting a "faithful reproduction of the intended Ainslie circuit", complete with the oscillations SHE has attempted to show on her not-so-informative DSO traces. I hope to get some kind of acknowledgement from somewhere that, when the circuit is supplied with the "correct" mosfets at the end of this week, if my supplier is correct, and I can find out some coherent information as to the inductance and resistances necessary, that it does the same things that Ainslie's own circuit does. After all.... 5 IRFPG50 mosfets will be installed; three 12 volt 5 A-H batteries will be used, a load matched in inductance and resistance to her claimed load will be used.... the circuit will be laid out with as much "sloppiness" as I can stomach, and hopefully will make the same kinds of oscillations Rosemary's is claimed to make.
Note that my circuit already DOES make the same kinds of oscillations, even using Internal Load 1. My old HP180 scope can't display them well enough for photography. But.... yes indeed I do have, a short drive away, an advanced 4-channel Tektronix DSO with, IIRC, 1 GHz bandwidth.

Quote

Is it a faithful reproduction of the intended Ainslie circuit?

Some would say no, since 1) I am using IRF830A mosfets from my parts stock; my supplier only had a single IRFPG50 in stock, so I only have a single one of those on hand. They are relatively expensive so I don't want to waste them during circuit config and basic baseline studies. (I already smoked a row of 5 2n7000s on this nonsense, but they are only a buck each.) And 2) I do not yet have the correct inductances... and my LC meter is blown (new one arriving at the weekend, hopefully) so I'm pretty much shooting in the dark on the inductance. But you can see the effect in the photos....

And of course I could duplicate her circuit and layout EXACTLY even down to the pegboard and RAT's nest wiring, and she would still claim that it wasn't a good replication... because you see, I am TK, the mighty would-be debunker with lousy experimental and math skills and garage-sale apparatus. Oh... and I live in Texas, and everybody knows what that means. BIG OIL RULES !!

(ETA: Since you seem to be interested and able to interpret what you see, perhaps you would like to review my earlier work with Rosemary's original circuit and COP>17 claim, from 2009 and earlier. Check out my YT channel and look for the early videos with "Electric OU" in the title and "Ainslie" in the keywords. Did I do a faithful enough reproduction then, or not? I'd be happy to hear YOUR criticism and comments, because that could only improve my present efforts to HONESTLY TEST ROSEMARY'S CIRCUIT and CLAIMS in a rational and hopefully unequivocal manner.... since she so evidently refuses to do so in public.)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1341 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:56:58 PM »

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on March 21, 2012, 06:07:23 PM

What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours. I am not sure what more I can answer.

Sorry... I guess you missed seeing this post, a few pages back in the thread.... because as typical, Rosemary came in with post after post of irrelevant innuendo and more absurdities to distract from the real issues.

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 05:08:22 PM

Let me state my position clearly.

1. Rosemary Ainslie over the years has claimed that at least 4 (slightly) different circuits using ordinary MOSFETS switched in a manner detailed in the MOSFET's data sheet.... all produce overunity performance, from COP>17 (her early claim) to COP = INFINITY in her latest claim, along with battery recharging and consuming NO power from the batteries.

2. The data and evidence that she has provided are inadequate to support such a grand claim.

3. The data and evidence that she has provided... the RAW DATA (most of it) ... CAN INDEED be duplicated, on demand, both in standard circuit model simulations as .99 and others have shown, and in real circuitry, as FuzzyTomcat and others have shown, including myself. These reports have been published, posted, referenced out the wazoo.

4. Rosemary has shown repeatedly that she does not understand basic arithmetic, algebra, nor does she have a grasp of the basic concepts of the calculus. She consistently and constantly confuses units of energy and power, showing that she does not understand the difference ("`1 Watt = 1 Joule, the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE" she says).

5. The conclusion that Ainslie's circuits perform in any manner other than the perfectly ordinary, is a result of her incorrect interpretation of the raw data, including but not limited to arithmetic errors, algebra errors, and improper data collection. When the data AS SHE PRESENTS IT is analyzed correctly, no indication of any "overunity" or battery charging performance due to her circuit can be found. This part of the story has been "replicated" over and over, by everyone with the knowledge and skill and apparatus to TEST FOR THEMSELVES.

6. No credible replication of her overunity claim exists, anywhere.

7. The present discussion illustrates each of my points above, in spades.

@eatenbyagrue: You no doubt have gotten caught up a little bit by now. I ask you therefore, Counselor: have you been able to find anything in what I've said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

Have you been able to find anything that Rosemary has said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

(edited for typos and grammar)

And let me also ask... do you find anything potentially "actionable" in anything I've said? I've called her ignorant and willfully so, and referenced her "calculations" as proof. I've called her a liar, and there is ample evidence of that from FTC, Powercat, and others including myself in this thread.

And she has threatened me with "killing" and "putting to rest", along with trying to silence my VALID criticisms and CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions and tests ....... go figure.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1342 on:** March 21, 2012, 07:09:31 PM »

Rosemary Ainslie says:

Quote

It really does not matter if I'm wrong.

Oh... yes... it does indeed matter. Because it shows that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT when you attempt to discuss matters concerning Watts, Joules, and simple algebra.

Quote

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

QED. But there are also more recent examples of Rosemary's arithmetic "skills", as our three readers can see for themselves.

SeaMonkey · « **Reply #1343 on:** March 21, 2012, 07:41:55 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala

...
Oh... and I live in Texas...
...

That is very encouraging! Some in the Republic
seem to think they live in TX...

I'll take a look.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1344 on:** March 21, 2012, 07:49:55 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 05:18:32 PM

Golly TK. I could hardly expect you to give me your actual address. That would, indeed, be reckless. Just a service address will do. Your attorney would be a safe bet. Surely? And I promise you faithfully that I won't attack you on anything other than purely legal grounds. You can even keep your name hidden - provided only that you'll answer to tinselkoala in Court.

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

LOL. And I assure you that I have no 'hired thugs'. If I did I'd use them to help defend me here on this thread against this 'elite troll army' that I face, all alone. But it's intriguing to see how frightened you are at the prospect of becoming accountable. It must be nice to hide behind an identity - where you can say what you want - allege what you please - and absolutely get away with it.

I get the distinct impression you're avoiding this post of mine TinselKoala. Is there a reason for this?

R

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1345 on:** March 21, 2012, 08:21:51 PM »

Guys, It seems that Glen Lettenmaier's legal team need some time to marshal the facts here. Perhaps they're not quite as efficient as my own lonely lawyer. Would that I could afford an entire team to deal with a class action. Golly. But then again - one would would have expected an entire team to assemble some papers more quickly than that? Surely? A whole year? A class team for a class action and it'll take a whole year to get their ducks in a row? That seems unnecessarily 'extended'. If that was me I'd be inclined to think that they're not taking me seriously enough. Frankly I'd sack them. On the spot. I'd want to know why I was not being prioritised. Hopefully Glen will take this advice to heart and find himself some more effective representation. Perhaps he needs a second team. After all. His complaint is profound. He has appropriated an entire experiment and associated papers as his own property and he needs untold representation to enforce this. Absolutely. I see the need.

Anyway. I'll keep you posted. Certainly - to date - we've had nothing other than rather empty threats of action to be taken in a year's time. Please. I could be dead by then. God knows. I'm already rather old.

Regards,
Rosemary

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1346 on:** March 21, 2012, 08:28:12 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 07:49:55 PM

I get the distinct impression you're avoiding this post of mine TinselKoala. Is there a reason for this?

R

Yes. As I have said before, I am afraid of you. Along with several other readers of this thread, I think that you probably are mentally unbalanced. I KNOW that if you had my contact information you would harass and bother people close to me. So if you want to know who I am.... you'll just have to figure it out for yourself, or get one of your minions like Mags or Wilby to tell you.
Of course if they do, they'll be violating my privacy and doing it without my permission, and if anything bad AT ALL happens to me or mine because of it.... then we'll understand a bit more fully just who YOU are, won't we.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1347 on:** March 21, 2012, 08:29:41 PM »

Poynty I'm submitting my proposed test protocols to some academics between tomorrow and Friday. I'll let you know their advices - and whether there's any level they're prepared to engage in - prior to publication. Please note. I am ONLY prepared to vary the protocols on their advices. I will absolutely not defer to anyone else's. Unless of course there are accredited power engineering experts here on our forum. In which case I'd need to know your identities and accreditation.

Which I think is fair. It seems there are endless opinions - but no experts. Sadly needed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1348 on:** March 21, 2012, 08:36:57 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 21, 2012, 08:28:12 PM

Yes. As I have said before, I am afraid of you. Along with several other readers of this thread, I think that you probably are mentally unbalanced. I KNOW that if you had my contact information you would harass and bother people close to me. So if you want to know who I am.... you'll just have to figure it out for yourself, or get one of your minions like Mags or Wilby to tell you.
Of course if they do, they'll be violating my privacy and doing it without my permission, and if anything bad AT ALL happens to me or mine because of it.... then we'll understand a bit more fully just who YOU are, won't we.

I'll pretend to believe that you believe this TK. It makes for such an interesting story.

Kindest regards,
Rosie.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1349 on:** March 21, 2012, 09:03:51 PM »

Quote from: SeaMonkey on March 21, 2012, 08:27:50 AM

Tinsel Koala,

Your circuit board layout with the parallel
connected MOSFETs (widely spaced with
long parallel leads) is known to be highly
susceptible to "spurious oscillation" or
"parasitic oscillation." This is especially
true when the MOSFETs are pulse driven
with rapid rise and fall times.

If you were to clean up the layout and take
the standard recommended precautions to
minimize those potential problems it is very likely
that circuit stability and your waveforms would be
somewhat different.

Hello SeaMonkey,
He has, indeed, managed to show us a rather poor example of nothing more than a parasitic oscillation. It has absolutely no parallel to anything that we manage on our own circuit. But he's rather hoping that we won't see the difference. Unfortunately TK claims a debunk on rather thin evidence. It's his true genius. Shamelessly vociferous. But utterly inadequate. Still. If he were principled then what he says might even matter.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 941505 times)

eatenbyagrue

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

fuzzytomcat

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

evolvingape

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

SeaMonkey

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.