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.

The crap you are seeing.... look at where it comes from. Ainlsie's ridiculous math errors, her untenable claims about her junk circuit, her misinterpetation of what her fancy scopes are showing, her threats, her contradictions of what people tell her directly .... all of it COMING FROM HER is crap.


Do you see the "drain" trace on her oscilloscope trace? Except for the noise bands, those mosfets are OFF and not passing power to the load. When the oscillation is happening, they are, but much less efficiently than if the oscillation wasn't there.
The DRAIN of a mosfet in this kind of circuit is HIGH... that is, at or near the battery's positive voltage.... when the load is OFF and not carrying current. The DRAIN of the mosfets will go LOW... drop considerably below battery voltage... when the mosfet turns ON. What you are seeing in those oscillations is a mosfet -- likely only one in the Q2 stack--- turning on and off rapidly due to the FEEDBACK that's ringing around in the circuit due to the lousy layout and all those stray wires and their inductances and capacitances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIDnjmPjW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA

Sorry about the tone of those videos.... I was embroiled in a discussion much like this one... the builders at Energetic Forum eventually  became so frustrated with Rosemary that she was banned under most acrimonious circumstances there and NONE of the enthusiastic builders and experimenters who believed in her at first could confirm her claims about overunity performance of that circuit (the "Quantum Magazine" circuit.) It's very frustrating to have to do this kind of remedial education with people who "think" they know it all but are mostly wrong.

This little fact caused no end of confusion for Rosemary and Err-on and still does, apparently. It is at the root of her early mistake, the COP>17 farce, where her timer was putting out a 97 percent ON duty cycle instead of the 3 or 4 percent ON as she claimed. She was thinking that HIGH voltage at the mosfet drain meant her circuit was ON !!

Does she still think that? From looking at her published scope trace and listening to the "explanation" of the presenter.... I think she does.

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.

Why don't you REFUTE some of the "crap comments" that are coming out of the woodwork? Just show where and how FuzzyTomcat is wrong. Just show where Powercat is actually endorsing Rosemary like she says and like HE DENIES. Just show where I am wrong in any of my assertions. Show where MileHigh is wrong in his suggested test. Show where I am wrong in the test I suggested.

Build and test Rosemary's circuit FOR YOURSELF, then come back and talk about crap.

Or simply show how Rosemary is right in the following CRAP calculation:

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.

And while you are at it, explain to me why and how MY experiment, when the data are calculated this way, is not also massively overunity.

There is certainly a lot of content-less CRAP on this thread as you say. But it's not coming from Rosemary's detractors. NONE of her supporters or defenders, like YOU, have posted any EVIDENCE or EXPERIMENTAL WORK of their own to support your assertions that the detractors are speaking CRAP.

Guys,

I think you all need to change directions here.


Rosemary has indicated her Quantum 2002 article has been updated from a "CLAIM" of COP>17 to a incredible COP>INFINITY and is willing even to show it in court if need be.

The Quantum magic device has -

(1) IRFPG50 MOSFET
(1) 555 timer circuit on a separate dc battery power supply from the load inductor.
(1) fly back diode across the load inductor

It doesn't need all those mosfets in what ever wiring configuration, every circuit has been used now, there's only so many in Rosemary's NERD RAT examples Q1 / x5 or the Q1 / Q2-Q4 .   



So what say you ..... the Quantum 2002 article COP>INFINITY up-grade, just dust it off Rosemary and lets go !!!!


 

I say this: The Quantum circuit has many problems, not the least of which is awaiting anyone who builds and tests even the timer portion of the circuit AS PUBLISHED by Rosemary and never RETRACTED....

EDIT: I see that Fuzzy has posted Rosemary's retraction and acknowledgement of this error along with her fatuous apology to me. Did you realise that she later "retracted" this retraction and apology and continued to claim that the circuit was correct afterwards?

..... although all of her previous collaborators had to discard that circuit and build their own timers.... since the one published by Rosemary produces an INVERTED duty cycle: it keeps the mosfets OFF for 3.5 percent of the time rather than ON for that short duty cycle. Hence... once again... it is possible to reproduce her load heating time and temp profile DATA..... but her conclusion, that it happened at a short mosfet duty cycle... is wrong, because once again SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND circuitry or the quantitative use of an oscilloscope. Or even the qualitative use.... she was publishing scope traces that looked like this during those days:

(Is this one of hers, or one of mine?)

"This because the Tektronix is not grounded and we need to obivate grounding concerns expressed by many of you..."

Idiot.

YOU HAVE GOT EVERY PROBE GROUND FROM EVERY CHANNEL ON EACH OSCILLOSCOPE AS WELL AS THE FUNCTION GENERATOR CONNECTED DELIBERATELY TO THE SAME POINT ON THE CIRCUIT BOARD.

Under those circumstances it matters not one whit whether one of the devices has an isolated power supply. ALL YOUR PROBES AND INSTRUMENT GROUNDS ARE CONNECTED TOGETHER, INCLUDING YOUR FUNCTION GENERATOR's "minus" LEAD.

Rosemary says many many untrue things in that post of hers. Here's just one:

Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 07:54:00 AM<blockquote>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.</blockquote>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.

Please watch this video carefully, with liberal use of your "pause button" if you can find it, Rosemary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

0.21 : a diagram is shown that is not the diagram of the circuit being shown... it does not show the reversed mosfet which results in the ACTUAL circuit being the one with the Q1-Q2 crossover.

0.42-44  That is either the GATE pin or the SOURCE pin of that mosfet connected to the point F in the circuit. The DRAIN is the middle pin. Since the GATES of all the other mosfets have a red sleeve on them, this is probably the GATE of that mosfet there connected to the point labelled F on the board. Also, the diagram shows the FG's output connected to point C. But the actual board shows the red alligator clip from the FG is actually connected to point F, not point C. (0:42).

1:42 and on.
Presenter says "and F would be the common drain"  which is shown clearly on the diagram to be CHANNEL 4, the green trace on your famous oscilloscope. Or is that wrong too? What do YOU claim the green trace shows?
What other signal from your circuit would require an AC coupling setting at 100 volt per division?

And the "small ticks" that I  speak of are evident to ANYONE WHO HAS EVER USED AN OSCILLOSCOPE TO MAKE QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS. You should have your glasses checked. The screen is crossed by two white lines, horizontal and vertical that meet in the very center. These are the SCALE DIVISIONS and the "divisons" refer to the Major divisions, the big ticks, and the minor divisions, of which there are FIVE PER MAJOR DIVISION are indicated by "small ticks" across the white lines. As anyone who UNDERSTANDS an oscilloscope can tell you, ROSEMARY you willfully ignorant liar.

Of course it's nearly impossible to tell what is hooked up to what in that presentation ... just that there are errors.


The rest of her comments about my trace analysis are similarly... LIES.

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.    


Fuzzy
 

Hi Fuzzy

I can hear the judge now........ Rosemary Ainslie you are a delusional fantasist who will be sentence to........

Yes you can serve time in prison for making false claims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030532/Plastic-para-fantasist-spent-years-claiming-hero-soldier-despite-serving-cook-jailed-fraud.html

If I believed that I had something like that, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would perform the test I suggested, at least, immediately to end all controversy about it.

Oh come on, what would be the fun in that?  You know how these tests go with overunity devices.  They never go well, and then it's over.  The joy is in the ride, not the destination, so give the circuit a little more time to smell the roses.

Oh come on, what would be the fun in that?  You know how these tests go with overunity devices.  They never go well, and then it's over.  The joy is in the ride, not the destination, so give the circuit a little more time to smell the roses.

You are right about that. The problem in the present case is that the circuit and claims have been "riding" for ten years now, since the original Quantum article and circuit posted above in the thread somewhere. The circuit has "smelled the roses" and has gotten Rosemary banned from, since I've been following her, the Naked Scientists forum, the Energetic Forum (panacea u), this forum several times, and maybe more that I'm not aware of.  Like I said, she simply wears down her detractors... like me, I have to leave to go to work half an hour ago, but I need to refute her constant LIES about me, and it's getting rather old. YEARS of smelling those old roses growing out of the garbage. If only they were roses, instead of nettles.