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

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 933406 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1380 on: March 22, 2012, 07:12:51 AM »
I duly noted "REFUSAL" of request.

Thank You

Indeed Glen.  It's not so much that I'm REFUSING - but that I COULD NOT DO SO even if I wanted to.  Not under any jurisprudence anywhere in the world.  It is UNDERSTOOD that the claimant must find his own representation.  With the best will in the world - I cannot oblige you.  You really need to let that team of attorneys of yours advise you better.

Regards nonetheless
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1381 on: March 22, 2012, 07:43:16 AM »
Actually guys this is all rather easier than I thought.  I feel rather shy of Glen's inabilities here and equally rather ashamed of my ability to exploit them.

In fairness - here's the thing.  Glen most certainly replicated our experiment.  However, he feels that this is his own discovery and not ours.  I am absolutely NOT qualified to argue.  And frankly I don't care.  Ownership is not my thing.  However.  It's true that he assembled a resistor in the face of some rather shaky descriptions of this in our Quantum paper.  BUT.  Unfortunately he, Harvey and Ashtweth saw fit to divorce that experiment - not from our claim - but from the prediction of that result in our thesis on this.  Since it not only was always the basis of our evidence this move was absolutely NOT something that I could handle.  This thesis is considerably more important than the associated evidence of that thesis.  Certainly to over unity research. Then to compound the folly he also started a thread at energetic forum - where Harvey and he variously insinuated or stated that the claims in that paper were fallacious.  Again.  This caused a total rift.

Here's the thing Glen.  I am most appreciative of your replication.  You have drawn great deal of attention to the reality of over unity.  But by the same token you are profoundly contradictory when you deny that evidence and yet allow that paper to be published under your name on your Scribd account.  If you wish to leave that paper there - then come out and say it.  That you 'stand' by those numbers.  Unless you do this then you do not have a leg to stand on.  And you've wasted some many years in denying this when you could have been capitalising on its use and on the certain publicity that is associated with a valid replication.  Quite apart from which I think you had some plans to apply the technology.  Surely you see it now.  You absolutely CANNOT exploit or advance anything at all while you also deny the benefits. 

I am more than happy to bury the hatchet - provided only that you do not disclaim that hard work related to those papers.  Then I would be more than happy to allow the 'filming' of our test on your own channels - possibly in conjunction with our own - as I it would be foolhardy to trust to your intentions at this early stage.  And you would need to accede to my rights and all the collaborators' rights to publish that paper and use iit in any context that they choose. 

In any event.  It is clear to me that you want to engage.  And this is the ONLY way that it would be possible.  Just think about it.  This engagement that you're offering is getting rather absurd.  And I get it that you actually DO want to be involved.  That's my best offer.

Regards
Rosemary

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1382 on: March 22, 2012, 07:54:00 AM »
Below you can see the famous scope trace from the Ainslie demo video. The presenter should be made to attend oscilloscope management classes for his egregious violation of quantitative scoposcopy... but I know that's not going to happen.

Let me try to explain what's happening on this screen.

On the left side in the blue margin are four little numbers whose color corresponds to a trace color. 1, 3, 2, and 4, from the top.

These markers indicate the "zero" level or baseline for that corresponding scope channel. Note that, except for the oscillations, the only trace that actually indicates SWITCHING is the gate or FG signal, the blue trace 3. Its volts per division setting can be read down below, and it's 2 volts per division. It would be nice to have some graticle illumination so we could see the scale divisions themselves. This trace is going from ZERO volts at the marker on the left, down to minus something, lost in the blur, but the scope's parameter function tells us (the box on the middle right) that this noise averages to -1.52 volts.
(EDIT: Actually this box is telling us that the trigger is on Ch 2 and is set at 1. 52 volts. Sorry, I need new glasses. The true value of the midpoint of the oscillations on the blue trace seems to be about 6 scale tics or a bit over 2 volts, not 1.52 volts.)
This indicates that the circuit IS drawing down the FG's output, just as I have shown... because the mosfets won't even begin to switch at an ACTUAL gate input that's so small.

The purple trace is the battery voltage. Note it is set at 50 volts per division, and the "noise" and the normal battery voltage between the noise is at about 6 little ticks above its zero marker, as it should be since there are 5 little ticks PER division.
The other two traces are more problematic. Note that they do NOT show the up-and-down deviations of the gate signal, but rather are flat across through the noise oscillations just like the battery traces.
Now...these mosfets switch ON when the gate receives a POSITIVE charge of enough magnitude. So the only way a NEGATIVE gate drive pulse could switch a mosfet ON is if... something is screwy somewhere. It could be a result of the combination of the FG's offset setting and the voltage draw-down caused by the low impedance of the circuit connected to the FG.
The number 1 trace, yellow, the voltage drop across the shunt, is set at 1 volt per division and is oscillating around the ZERO value, and the scope is trying to compute a mean and other statistics on the noise band... and is coming up with a small negative number. This is not unusual, surprising, nor does it represent what is actually happening. In other words... it's an artefact caused by improper use of the oscilloscope, and tells us nothing about the current flowing across the shunt except that it's too noisy for the scope to resolve during the oscillations.
The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.
In the cursor information box at the upper right, there is much useless info displayed, but the delta-t--- the duration of a single cycle--- appears to be 100 milliseconds. (The timebase is set at 40 milliseconds per horizontal major division). That's the horizontal distance (time) between the A cursor and the B cursor, the vertical white lines on the left part of the shot. Twelve minor ticks at 40 ms per 5 ticks... that's 100 ms.
 Er... um...... cough cough..... that's 10 cycles PER second. I thought the FG was set to 10 kHz or something realistic like that. But the scope is telling us that sure enough, we are operating at 10 Hz. And they are showing you four or five cycles at 10 Hz when the interesting stuff is happening at the start and finish of the oscillations, at 1 MHz or more. No wonder it just looks like a blur across the trace.

So we have a circuit made of a true rat's nest of wires, using mosfets wired together in the most casual and naive manner possible, with lots of stray capacitance and inductances all over the place, with manifest evidence of massive feedback oscillations and a presenter who thinks an oscilloscope is for making pretty wiggley lines with. And this scope trace is the evidence of massive overunity.

They have TWO digital scopes, 4 channels each, connected to the circuit in exact parallel. And they can't even get a stable trigger on the LeCroy, and its lack of bandwidth becomes evident. They have these fancy scopes and don't use them properly. I would have used the Tek to take voltage across the shunt on one channel, drain voltage on a second one, used the math to multiply them together for an instantaneous power trace on the third trace, and then integrated that over time on the fourth displayed trace. Then the LECroy could monitor battery voltage and the FG and the other raw parameters just like it is, and there would actually be some DATA coming out of the demonstration instead of pretty colored wiggly lines.

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1383 on: March 22, 2012, 10:35:04 AM »
TK
Well done on the new testing,  I feel it doesn't matter how well you do it Rosemary will never be satisfied with the result,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality,
the sad truth is that delusional people believe their own lies.
 
Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.
 
 
 

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1384 on: March 22, 2012, 11:05:57 AM »
Howdy members and guests,

This will be interesting to have a comparison with the Quantum 2002 COP>17 device of Rosemary's and the modified Device I made with my custom hand made borosilicate glass 10 ohm inductor ....

Although this is only a "libel" lawsuit, but ........ it would be absolutely fantastic to see what has been hidden for years, never to be seen by any Open Source experimentalist and for Rosemary to admit she still has the device people will pay money to see the infamous COP>17 thingamabob device in operation and actually working.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302      Reply #1379 on: March 21, 2012, 11:08:59 PM

Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html#post60279             07-13-2009, 07:52 AM


 witsend              ( aka Rosemary Ainslie )  Senior Member

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned.

Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.


So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have

been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that

we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation.

I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was

due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.


I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in

that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a

problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my

own inability to read such.


So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented.

I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund

you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on

the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.


What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the

experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities.
We have also, over the years, built many

different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this

prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after

publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a

copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack

of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.


Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum

article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM

in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.
 

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1385 on: March 22, 2012, 11:21:03 AM »
Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary

Edit FREE for the RECORD .....

Flux It

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1386 on: March 22, 2012, 12:42:23 PM »
Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider. I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit, but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak. I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Lettenmaier
To: Stefan Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Libel Case - Rosemary Ainslie

Hi Stefan,

I was asked to get a listing of IP addresses that the Over Unity member Rosemary Ainslie has used to access
the Over Unity web site.

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.

I am only asking this of you to avoid any legal process that would arise to get this information from you, in a
timely manner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Glen Lettenmaier

Perhaps you should find a lawyer that has heard of the Data Protection Act, then maybe move on to one that can actually spell forensics. Gee, that email looks like such an official document though...you have got to be kidding.

If you do have a lawyer I would suggest litigation for the apparent chemicals in your drinking water... :o

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1387 on: March 22, 2012, 12:47:05 PM »
TK
Well done on the new testing,  I feel it doesn't matter how well you do it Rosemary will never be satisfied with the result,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality,
the sad truth is that delusional people believe their own lies.
 
Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

Hi Cat,

What surprises me is the Quantum 2002 article was about a COP>17 thingamabob device ...... and now it's a COP INFINITY device she want to show in court that I copied and stole  ??  ODD .....   ???

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302    Reply #1379 on: March 21, 2012, 11:08:59 PM

Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.    :o


Fuzzy
 ;)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1388 on: March 22, 2012, 01:53:04 PM »
Guys - I need to caution you all - yet again.  There are gross misrepresentations in TK's earlier post and I'd be sorry if you lost the significance of these waveforms.  We used the Tektronix to endorse the LeCroy numbers.  This because the Tektronix is not grounded and we need to obivate grounding concerns expressed by many of you - including Harti.  In other words we could thereby prove that the LeCroy results were not skewed due to grounding issues. Because their results were the same.  And the LeCroy being available from the get go was also our instrument of record.

However, the complaint related to lack of graticule illumination is absolute nonsense.  That's the preferred setting of the Tektronix.  And his complaint about the lack of switching is precisely because this is an extraordinary result.  We are able to adjust the offset to resist all current flow during the 'on' period of each duty cycle. The yellow trace.  And we're dissipating some significant heat from the element resistor. 

This indicates that the circuit IS drawing down the FG's output, just as I have shown... because the mosfets won't even begin to switch at an ACTUAL gate input that's so small.
Also a load of nonsense.  We get a very clean switch at this level.  However, on this setting we've applied enough resistance at the offset to restrict any flow of current at all during the on period of each switching cycle.  One day, hopefully TK will catch up with the argument.  He clearly has no clue.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'the circuit' 'drawing down' anything at all.  And he has the temerity to try and criticise the presenter of that video.  I rather think the evidence suggests that it's TK who's guilty of 'egregious violation of quantitative scoposcopy'.  Golly.  Such big words.  8) :o

The purple trace is the battery voltage. Note it is set at 50 volts per division, and the "noise" and the normal battery voltage between the noise is at about 6 little ticks above its zero marker, as it should be since there are 5 little ticks PER division.
LOL.  This is yet more egregious violation.  Whatever next.  I think we'd all like to know what he means by 6 little ticks or 5 little ticks?  I rather suspect he can't work out those peaks at each oscillation.

The other two traces are more problematic. Note that they do NOT show the up-and-down deviations of the gate signal, but rather are flat across through the noise oscillations just like the battery traces.
And YET more egregious violations.  LOL.  If those oscillations across the battery are classified 'noise' then that's rather a lot of noise to be generated by those batteries.  And I'd need to be exceptionally adventurous to claim that the battery voltage is 'rather flat'. 

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1389 on: March 22, 2012, 01:55:41 PM »
continued/...
I split this post guys.  Just way too long.

Now...these mosfets switch ON when the gate receives a POSITIVE charge of enough magnitude.
I'm glad he explains this.  Else how would we know?

So the only way a NEGATIVE gate drive pulse could switch a mosfet ON is if... something is screwy somewhere. It could be a result of the combination of the FG's offset setting and the voltage draw-down caused by the low impedance of the circuit connected to the FG.
Which is UTTERLY meaningless drivel.  What I think he's trying NOT to say is...'Golly.  It seems that when the MOSFET's on there's no current flow.  And when the MOSFET's off - then there's current flow.  How odd.'  At this point there's an anomaly.  I'd repeat the argument if I thought his opinion mattered.  But frankly I'd prefer to deal with Poynty.  At least he's already looked at this - and, unlike TK - he also has the merit of being exceptionally bright.
 
The number 1 trace, yellow, the voltage drop across the shunt, is set at 1 volt per division and is oscillating around the ZERO value, and the scope is trying to compute a mean and other statistics on the noise band... and is coming up with a small negative number. This is not unusual, surprising, nor does it represent what is actually happening. In other words... it's an artefact caused by improper use of the oscilloscope, and tells us nothing about the current flowing across the shunt except that it's too noisy for the scope to resolve during the oscillations.
What a load of nonsense. I think that Tektronix would, themselves rather object to the implications here.  There is no way the scope can be used improperly.  A setting is a setting.  We cannot fudge the results.  And that Tetronix is WELL able to cope with measurements at those frequencies and indeed much greater. 

The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.
Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

Actually guys.  That's as far as I want to go with this nonsense.  I cannot tell you how much it irritates me.  A complete time waster.  Yet again TK is presuming to give rational explanations when he actually hasn't a clue how that machine operates or what the technology shows.  It's rather disheartening.  And if I continued with this post it may even give the impression that anything he says can be taken seriously.  I think I must just go back to ignoring his input.  I trust you'll do the same.  Or if you do read it - then PLEASE.  Take it with somewhat more than a grain of salt.  He's winging it and he's propagandising.  It has NOTHING to do with science.  And even less to do with our technology.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1390 on: March 22, 2012, 02:03:03 PM »
Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.
Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1391 on: March 22, 2012, 02:27:12 PM »
Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.

Rosemary,

You are so full of CRAP ..... I can smell it 10,000 miles away.

And if this is your attorney .... you have failed again. Looks to me a friend or your son's Jamie schoolmate, nothing but a P.O box   :'(

http://www.privateproperty.co.za/manson-tobin-attorneys-/attorney-22355.htm

Some one in International Internet law might be something to look into.

COP>INFINITY on the Quantum 2002 article device that you got a COP>17 ..... good thing you admitted to having the experimental COP>17 apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities still, how about a YouTube video some photos of it ???

 ;)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1392 on: March 22, 2012, 02:40:07 PM »
I assure you that you've been given the service address of an attorney Glen.  Why would I do otherwise? I'm sure they'll write to you to acknowledge receipt of those papers.  Can't wait to read them.

Golly
Rosemary

energy1234hope

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1393 on: March 22, 2012, 02:52:38 PM »
Rosie it was so peaceful here before all these lot found out you had your own thread. They certainly came out of the woodwork to put sh*t on you. They managed to shut your last thread down by comment after comment of crap. Wish you the best of luck with this lot.

evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1394 on: March 22, 2012, 02:59:25 PM »
evolvingape,

Clearly you were making an assumption, and it would appear to be incorrect.

Perhaps the first question you SHOULD have asked BEFORE you assumed, was "What is the claim for this drawdown test?", like I did, here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

And Rosemary seems to hint at an answer here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315692/#msg315692

Therefore, you should conclude that this test is not to prove her circuit yields COP infinity, and that we are aiming to test as I have outlined, pending agreement from Rosemary.
Poynt,
 
You asked for general input to determine reasonable test parameters, I offered some in good faith. If this upset you in some way I apologise.

 
You replied to them with agreement that the test is not to test the claim of COP = infinity.

 
I just want to know why you are redefining the claim to declare a winner at 50% over control ?

 
The claim on record as made by Rosemary is COP = infinity, as everyone knows.

 
A simple proof of an apparent anomaly is to turn it on and leave it alone, so why are you testing something else ?

 
RM :)

 
www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1314/


Quote: 
In order for the RAT experimental apparatus to be considered the successful victor in this contest, it must outlast the Control by a minimum of 50% more time. This baseline "time" is determined by when the Control batteries reach 10.5V each.

 
Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.