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 933332 times)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1410 on: March 22, 2012, 06:57:21 PM »
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 :)

evolvingape,

Yes any and all constructive input is welcome, thanks.

Why does it seem we are not going to evaluate the original claim of COP infinity?

You will have to ask Rosemary that question.

I don't think the claim to be tested has yest been FIRMLY established, and it will need to be before we can go forward in a serious manner.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1411 on: March 22, 2012, 07:07:18 PM »
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.

Hello guys,
This one's rich.  'Remedial education' no less.  That's a new way to phrase it.  I was actually banned because Harvey Gramm complained to the admin at energetic forum for my implicit criticism of him when I wrote... 'If anyone ever presumes to know everything there is to know about Ed Leedskalnin - then they would need to duplicate the miracle of Coral Castle to prove it'... or words to that effect.  And this because Harvey Gramm went on record.  He intruded into our new thread about Ed's work and stated 'I can explain everything there is to know about Ed Leedskalnin' ... or words to that effect. He also claimed - when I posted there - that I was 'dogging his footsteps'.  I ask you?  LOL

Guys, MileHigh says I write LOL when I'm feeling nervous.  He's wrong.  But I think when I write LOL I actually mean something closer to  'PLEASE' or 'I ASK YOU' or 'WHAT A JOKE'.  Perhaps I should just develop my own internet speak.  Actually I've tried this.  Here and there.  But they never seem to be as satisfactory as the actual written phrase.  I'm probably just way too old.  But LOL certainly seems to cover all shades.  Perhaps I'm presuming too heavily on nuance.  And I love MileHigh's lololololol.  I think that's the possibly most appropriate here. So here goes.  LOLOLOLOL

But I absolutely do NOT indulge in reckless traducement.  It's just NOT my style. Nor ever has been.  What is true is that our claim has been somewhat contentious and seems to generate a certain extreme polarity of opinion.  Fortunately the more extreme 'against' are always such utterly nasty people - that I'd be rather sorry and very ashamed to have them approve of me or of our technology.  Fortunately they don't.  I get the distinct impression that I'm like one of those Christian martyrs being fed to the lions.  And the troll - like the lion - has no intellect and no reason.  Only an appetite for the kill.  So.  With that analogy then let me explain something.  I would prefer it that there was some subtlety of intellect come into the equation.  Then - at least - there'd be something - some level of engagement - to engross us all.  I think I'd prefer some gladiatorial combat.  I'm certainly old and I'm also unschooled - but I suspect that on that level - then I'd have no competition at all.  As it is TK doesn't even understand the implications of that oscillation.  The less said about Glen's ability to argue the better.  And Evolving Ape is trying very hard to supplement his argument with a multi line spacing - that he can at least give his posts great length as he cannot manage either good sense or gravitas. 

I must say though - I'm awfully grateful that Harti's sticking to his word and allowing this thread.  But I'm worried that it may be because he's also relying on this public butchering.  He's our Nero - hosting the games.  Surely not?  Surely he'd promote fair play?  OR.  Perhaps he sees this as being 'fair'.  Anyway.  I think we've all had enough 'speculation'.  It's all the trolls can ever manage and at the risk of indulging some tautology  - I think we've had an ample surfeit. That 'speculative misrepresentation' which is the politest of all possible descriptions of their treatment of our circuit - our technology - and little old me.  :'(

Kindest regards guys.  Perhaps eventually TK et al will post something both interesting and appropriate.  I'm looking forward to it. Only because I'm afflicted with way too much optimism.

Rosemary

Edited.
Adjusted the spacing behind an apostrophe and added a minor qualification for clarity.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 08:10:31 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1412 on: March 22, 2012, 07:55:17 PM »
I find your obsession with Fuzzy as ridiculous as your stubbornness to carrying on regardless with your claim,
despite all the credible evidence against you, very few people even come to your defence and the majority of the ones that do are suspiciously new members.

I note from your response that you avoided the second part of my post, so here it is again.
How strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

And as for this.  It seems that Powercat thinks that IGNORING Glen Lettenmaier's multiple half-page posts indicates some kind of obsession?  He's only ever captured my interest on the promise of taking action against me.  I welcome it and have ably assisted by giving him a service address.

And there are MANY who support our claim.  How can they not?  It's been demonstrated - widely.  Not only this new circuit but the previous.  I've listed the number.  And they include very substantial players, including BP, ABB Research, SASOL, SPESCOM - and on and on.  TK likes to deny this because I don't post their names or proof of this.  But I keep pointing out that Quantum would hardly have published without first checking that accreditation.  And if their accreditation was bogus, if reference to their accreditation -  constituted a misrepresentation then I'm reasonably satisfied that I'd have had to face a call to 'retract' or face Court proceedings.  I'm too old and too well bitten to flirt with any level of misrepresentation.  He also seems to think that Professor Gaunt could not POSSIBLY have rejected a bursary award from SASOL.  Well.  As difficult as it may be to believe - it's also the truth.  There are those players who are INTIMATELY aware of both the offer and the rejection.  Presumably if they need to deny this it would be better that they first check their facts.

Regards to you powercat.  Your contributions are invaluable.  It gives me opportunity to reference some lesser known facts.
Rosie Pose

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1413 on: March 22, 2012, 08:54:08 PM »
Again, guys, at the risk of getting this subject on topic,

We have included a test in our paper that is consistent with the evidence in that download of TK's.  But it's not the correct download.  I'll try and find the LeCroy download when I'm done here.  If you look at the orange trace you'll see that the there is absolutely no battery draw down during the 'on phase' of the switching cycle.  The switch is shown on the blue trace.  When the switching cycle changes to its second phase of the duty cycle - when the battery is effectively disconnected, then only does the oscillation kick in. 

Now.  One must assume that the positive half of each of those oscillations comes from the battery supply.  IF this was the case, then equally, there must be some path for that current to flow.  Now.  We know that the signal at the gate of Q2 is positive.  In which case it would certainly enable a positive current discharge from the supply.  BUT.  For current to flow from the battery supply it would need to discharge that current flow to the battery supply source rail.  And it can't get there - other than through the the Gate of Q1 - because it's connected DIRECTLY to that leg.  Again.  The source leg of the Q2 MOSFET is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE of Q1.  And Q1 has an applied NEGATIVE SIGNAL.  It cannot 'breach' that signal.  So no sooner is the current discharged from the battery during this phase - when it is blocked at the only available outlet.  Therefore there is no path for the discharge of current during this period.  The circuit is effectively open to the battery as the battery cannot discharge any current flow.

That's the point of this entire argument and the intention of our paper.  We resolve the 'path' that would enable that positive half of each phase of each oscillation.   I'll get back here.  I need to post that waveform.  And I then want to propose our solution - in the hopes that there are more of you than just Poynty Point who can wrap their minds around this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I've chosen two downloads from two different tests.  The first is to show you some of the extreme range of current flow enabled notwithstanding the fact that no energy is delivered under closed conditions.  I unfortunately didn't do an waveform detail.  But I've included a download of the typical oscillation in the next download.  Hopefully it'll work.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1414 on: March 22, 2012, 09:10:37 PM »
This is an earlier exercise that I did to resolve the 'paths'.  If this is correct then it also tells us exactly what all this hidden energy is.  Again.  For those of you who can wrap there minds around this - this is the entire thesis - in a nutshell.  Which may seem insignificant.  But for those of you with insight into these matters this is huge.  I'm confident that TK will entirely miss the point here.  Which is why this conversation needs to move to POYNTY.  TK hasn't got the intellectual wherewith all to understand this.  Sadly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Which guys, means this.

To keep this readable - BV = battery voltage - BC = battery current. 
Conversely RV = resistor voltage - RC = resistor current.

1 BC is positive -  clockwise              -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this >>>>> GREATER ZERO
. potential difference transferred to RV
. discharge of potential difference from BV

2 RC is negative - counterclockwise   +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this <<<<< LESS THAN ZERO
. potential difference transferred to BV
. discharge of potential difference from RV

3 RC is positive - clockwise               +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this >>>>>>GREATER THAN ZERO
 . potential difference transferred from RV
. recharge of potential difference at BV

This would resolve the problem.  Effectively we're proposing that the discharge of energy in that 3rd phase is coincident with the positive half of each oscillation.  And that it 'leads' with a negative charge.  Which would explain the path for that oscillation as the charge bias of the current would then be in synch with the polarity bias' of the MOSFETS.

In any event guys.  That's what we're proposing.  I hope that's clear.  Effectively all that has happened is that the element resistor becomes the supply source and it's voltages are the mirror opposite of the battery supply.  LOL  It's difficult to explain.  But it's just SO SIMPLE.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1415 on: March 22, 2012, 09:16:03 PM »
And to round off the example - here's a diagrammatic presentation of the actual connections around that Q-array.

Kindest again
Rosemary

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1416 on: March 22, 2012, 09:39:49 PM »
And as for this.  It seems that Powercat thinks that IGNORING Glen Lettenmaier's multiple half-page posts indicates some kind of obsession?   

Yes it is an obsession of yours we have seen many times over the years, You keep saying that Fuzzy support your  claims,  he denies it, you ignore him, so you get from him multiple half-page post, so don't try to make out it's something new, it's been going on for years and it is on record

And there are MANY who support our claim.  How can they not?  It's been demonstrated - widely.  Not only this new circuit but the previous. 

I am sure you believe that, So where are the many supporters of your claim ? It looks like most of them have deserted you a long time ago.
Just because you have demonstrated something doesn't make it any more real, In the same way that a magician does .

 
I've listed the number.  And they include very substantial players, including BP, ABB Research, SASOL, SPESCOM - and on and on.

Receiving a standardised response letter from big companies is not difficult and you have already given your excuse for not publishing them......... How convenient
so we get back to Fuzzy as the only one (you say) supports your claim.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1417 on: March 22, 2012, 09:48:26 PM »
Yes it is an obsession of yours we have seen many times over the years, You keep saying that Fuzzy support your  claims,  he denies it, you ignore him, so you get from him multiple half-page post, so don't try to make out it's something new, it's been going on for years and it is on record
I say nothing of the sort.  Glen Lettenmaier - aka Fuzzytomcat advises us all via his scribd account - that he WHOLLY supports our COP>17 claim.

I am sure you believe that, So where are the many supporters of your claim ? It looks like most of them have deserted you a long time ago. Just because you have demonstrated something doesn't make it any more real, In the same way that a magician does.
Then you must accuse Glen Lettenmaier of this.  Not me.  Our accredictors took the trouble to REPLICATE the tests for themselves or were 'hands on' in their own applied measurement parameters.

Receiving a standardised response letter from big companies is not difficult and you have already given your excuse for not publishing them......... How convenient
When does a company produce a standardised response to say 'yes you may use our names as accreditors of your experimental evidence'?  What would be standard about any such reply - assuming that ever was the reply? 

so we get back to Fuzzy as the only one (you say) supports your claim.
I do not claim anything of the sort.  AGAIN  Glen Lettenmaier states that he has replicated our COP>17 experiment.  Nothing to do with me.

How many ways do you want this stated powercat?  I'm happy to try them all.  Because every time I do so then they remind our readers about Glen's replication.  And it cannot be said too often.  I've already said this.  Your contributions to this thread are invaluable.

Rosie Pose

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1418 on: March 22, 2012, 10:14:18 PM »
How many times Rosemary, time for a repost.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"


May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1419 on: March 22, 2012, 10:51:05 PM »
How many times Rosemary, time for a repost.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"


May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.


I am well aware of this reference.  It is a perfect example not only of the level of Glen Lettenmaier's lack of profressionalism but your endorsement of this lack.  I rely on this evidence. Like I said earlier - this thread is over populated with trolls.  Would that there were a brain between you.

Rosie Pose

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1420 on: March 22, 2012, 11:02:26 PM »
I say nothing of the sort.  Glen Lettenmaier - aka Fuzzytomcat advises us all via his scribd account - that he WHOLLY supports our COP>17 claim.
Then you must accuse Glen Lettenmaier of this.  Not me.  Our accredictors took the trouble to REPLICATE the tests for themselves or were 'hands on' in their own applied measurement parameters.
When does a company produce a standardised response to say 'yes you may use our names as accreditors of your experimental evidence'?  What would be standard about any such reply - assuming that ever was the reply? 
I do not claim anything of the sort.  AGAIN  Glen Lettenmaier states that he has replicated our COP>17 experiment.  Nothing to do with me.

How many ways do you want this stated powercat?  I'm happy to try them all.  Because every time I do so then they remind our readers about Glen's replication.  And it cannot be said too often.  I've already said this.  Your contributions to this thread are invaluable.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary .....

Your a fucking liar ....

I do not and never have supported a COP>17 claim of yours. Show me PROOF where I did support your COP>17 claim ..... liar

I have never made a CLAIM of a COP>17 ever no where.  Show me the PROOF where I did claim a COP>17 ...... liar

The IEEE SCRIBD pre-print of the preliminary results has nothing to with my final evaluation of a modified Quantum 2002 circuit ..... it's here you fucking liar !!!! OH, that's right you can't fucking read can you ROSEMARY !!!

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746     05-02-2010, 09:23 AM

I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" channel on
the
January 9, 2010 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that
many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the
recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the
Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in   Test #13    which was used in the IEEE submittal
Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and
in   Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members
and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid
or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has
a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately
for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054
these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting
or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to
record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need
to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a   Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to
verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the
preferred mode of operation.




Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1421 on: March 23, 2012, 02:04:06 AM »
Rosemary .....Your a fucking liar ....I do not and never have supported a COP>17 claim of yours. Show me PROOF where I did support your COP>17 claim ..... liar I have never made a CLAIM of a COP>17 ever no where.  Show me the PROOF where I did claim a COP>17 ...... liar The IEEE SCRIBD pre-print of the preliminary results has nothing to with my final evaluation of a modified Quantum 2002 circuit ..... it's here you fucking liar !!!! OH, that's right you can't fucking read can you ROSEMARY !!!

Guys,

Not only does our Glen Lettenmaier use the rather limited range of expletives enjoyed by your average low life criminal sociopath - but it seems that he's suffering from the same complete lack of understanding of principle.  Could someone else perhaps explain the significance of the following statement in his publication on his Scribd Account.  I don't think there's anything ambiguous here.  And he claims UNDER OATH to the scribd authorities that this is exclusively his work.  Here's a direct transcript.

The opening paragraph stipulates that ...The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonatingfrequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Resultsindicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest) published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical  magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate  the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.
 
Until he withdraws this then he's on record.  He does, MOST ASSUREDLY, claim a replication of our earlier COP>17 test.  Should he withdraw that publication then he would be entitled to deny that it's a replication.  Then I can reclaim ownership of my own work and publish that paper on my own account.  And he will then have yet more grounds to sue me.  As I've mentioned - I would welcome this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1422 on: March 23, 2012, 02:26:48 AM »
Guys,

Not only does our Glen Lettenmaier used the rather limited range of expletives enjoyed by your average low life criminal sociopath - but it seems that he's suffering from the same complete lack of understanding of principle.  Could someone else perhaps explain the significance of the following statement in his publication on his Scribd Account.  I don't think there's anything ambiguous here.  And he claims UNDER OATH to the scribd authorities that this is exclusively his work.  Here's a direct transcript.

The opening paragraph stipulates that ...The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonatingfrequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Resultsindicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest) published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical  magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate  the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.
 
Until he withdraws this then he's on record.  He does, MOST ASSUREDLY, claim a replication of our earlier COP>17 test.  Should he withdraw that publication then he would be entitled to deny that it's a replication.  Then I can reclaim ownership of my own work and publish that paper on my own account.  And he will then have yet more grounds to sue me.  As I've mentioned - I would welcome this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary ....

You just don't "GET IT" .....

ROSEMARY"S  EXAMPLE -

The EARTH was believed to be "FLAT" and the center of the "UNIVERSE" ...... this is incorrect and all documents world wide "MUST BE DESTROYED" with no trace of anything ever being written.

Let's make this simple for even a "GRADE" school child, so prove you can fucking read ROSEMARY !!

There are two dates shown in GREEN.

1) Which is the FIRST date ?

2) Which is the SECOND date ?

3) Which order are the DATES in and the FORUM THREADS NAMES or LINKS ?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
( attached "DOWNLOAD" - 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf  ) 

PAGE NUMBER 1

Manuscript received Dec 1, 2009. This work was supported entirely as a global open source project by independent persons oriented toward its success

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


http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746     05-02-2010, 09:23 AM

I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" channel on
the January 9, 2010 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that
many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the
recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the
Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in   Test #13    which was used in the IEEE submittal
Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and
in   Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members
and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid
or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has
a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately
for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054
these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting
or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to
record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need
to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a   Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to
verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the
preferred mode of operation.


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1423 on: March 23, 2012, 02:34:50 AM »
Yet again, guys, someone needs to explain this to Glen Lettenmaier in some simple language that it seems I cannot manage.  Notwithstanding my best efforts.

The required procedure in the publication of anything at all is to stand by those numbers.  If, subsequent to publication - it becomes apparent that there has been any new evidence brought to bear that voids the evidence in that early publication - then the honourable procedure is to publish a retraction and withdraw any extant publications.  Anything short of this would lend credence to the claims in that publication that would also, thereby, mislead the public.

It would not matter if that publication was 10 years in advance of the actual dates.  It NEEDS MUST BE WITHDRAWN.  And until it's withdrawn it's considered to carry the endorsement of all those names of all the collaborators on that paper.  This includes, not only Glen Lettenmaier's name but that of Harvey Gramm, and Ashtweth Palise, both of whom have also joined forces with Glen to deny the evidence.

Sorry to impose,
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1424 on: March 23, 2012, 02:38:40 AM »
Yet again, guys, someone needs to explain this to Glen Lettenmaier in some simple language that it seems I cannot manage.  Notwithstanding my best efforts.

The required procedure in the publication of anything at all is to stand by those numbers.  If, subsequent to publication - it becomes apparent that there has been any new evidence brought to bear that voids the evidence in that early publication - then the honourable procedure is to publish a retraction and withdraw any extant publications.  Anything short of this would lend credence to the claims in that publication that would also, thereby, mislead the public.

It would not matter if that publication was 10 years in advance of the actual dates.  It NEEDS MUST BE WITHDRAWN.  And until it's withdrawn it's considered to carry the endorsement of all those names of all the collaborators on that paper.  This includes, not only Glen Lettenmaier's name but that of Harvey Gramm, and Ashtweth Palise, both of whom have also joined forces with Glen to deny the evidence.

Sorry to impose,
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

When you PROVE pigs fly Rosemary !!

 :P