Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83535
  • *Latest: Fritzman

  • *Total Posts: 514388
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 665209 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2012, 06:45:36 AM »
My dear Chet,

If, as you claim - you did not provide that link - then - indeed - I, and one or two members who alerted me to it - must be entirely deluded.  Frankly I'm inclined to believe that you may have 'inadvertently' posted it.  Either way - it did not 'stop the world from spinning'.  And I was mildly amused at best because that - like so many other representations about me are absurd and rather comical.  You probably have seen them on that 'hate blog' dedicated to me.  But don't let that monopolise your attention.  More relevant to the issue are those many other points that I raised.  I wonder if I can impose on you to comment

It is a fact that we have proved that electric current has a dual charge potential.  It is a fact that we have measured infinite COP.  It is a fact that we have taken water to boil at NO MEASURED COST OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY.  It is a fact that these results were required and predicted in terms of a magnetic field model.  It is a fact, therefore, that we qualify for Poynty's over unity prize.  And it is also a FACT that Poynty has NOT  responded to our challenge for his prize.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps you can enlighten us.  You're knee deep in there.

It is also a FACT that ALL these forums are very carefully NOT talking about Rossi's technology which, frankly outperforms ALL our claims.  Again.  I wonder why that is?

Do advise us.  You really need to - if we're to engage in all this apparent enthusiasm for over unity results.  It would be very sad to learn that you never reference our own work because Poynty and Harvey have advised you all that it doesn't work. 

Regards
Rosemary

And about that 'cept' thing.  I mistakenly thought you were signing your letter.  Forgive me.  I'm that old that I'm entirely unschooled in internet 'speak'.  I take it that your name is Chet?  is that right?  It's difficult to work it out - the more so as none of you expose your ACTUAL identities.  More's the pity.  it makes me think that I'm engaging with 'talking heads'.  Very confusing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2012, 07:36:35 AM »
Three days in moderation for anyone to see the post I just deleted ..... it's not worth my time or expertise now.

Fuzzy
 :P
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 04:56:10 PM by fuzzytomcat »

Offline CuriousChris

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2012, 07:47:35 AM »
Hi Rosemary

About your gauntlet statement.

I have often considered offering a small prize to help someone continue their research into OU. $10K I know its not much but all I could afford. but that's not the point of my reply. my point is I would not accept a gauntlet thrown down such as yours.

Unless I could independently replicate the process that resulted in OU in a pristine environment where I control or at least am sure no one else controls all the variables, I simply would not do it. So perhaps you could look at changing the location to one that is independent. you are more likely to get a (better) response.

CC

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2012, 07:47:35 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2012, 08:02:08 AM »
Hi Rosemary

About your gauntlet statement.

I have often considered offering a small prize to help someone continue their research into OU. $10K I know its not much but all I could afford. but that's not the point of my reply. my point is I would not accept a gauntlet thrown down such as yours.

Unless I could independently replicate the process that resulted in OU in a pristine environment where I control or at least am sure no one else controls all the variables, I simply would not do it. So perhaps you could look at changing the location to one that is independent. you are more likely to get a (better) response.

CC

Dear Curious Chris,

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing anyone at all from replicating our circuit.  The specs are well defined and - subject to an ability to access some reasonably proficient measuring apparatus - it is all very doable.

The 'gauntlet' is to remind our readers that our claim has been DENIED without any attempts at replication - other than Poynty's own early efforts on his simulation program.  He then departed into a spurious set of further tests in an attempt to deny those very results.  But even that was too late.  The replications on simulated software have now been widely tested.

The point is this.  We have results that should be added to the general pool of evidence that over unity results are not some rather fanciful concepts from some equally fanciful promoters - as is suggested.  They are all real.  Right up to and including the work done on this forum.  But they're also widely dismissed.  And that is courtesy the tireless efforts of those 'nay sayers'.  I am simply proposing that IF indeed, they want proof of over unity - then put foot and pull finger.  Because we've done this.  Rossi has done this.  But so have SO MANY OTHERS.  They ALL die a natural death on these forums.  And when these dedicated 'discreditors' can't attack the technology they resort to attacking the character.  Their motives are transparently obvious.  I have ample proof of this.

There is absolutely NO way I would send our apparatus to Poynty or to Steve.  Poynty I know is NOT intellectually honest.  And Steve is on record as attacking Rossi's technology on the basis of the man's character - and in the face of wide expert accreditation.  Therefore we would need to protect the technology against any spurious accreditation that may, as it seems to, carry an agenda.  The ONLY way this could be protected is to ensure that they do NOT tamper with the evidence.  So.  We establish the required measurement protocols.  We establish the required parameters for proof.  And then we show this in a demonstration where there is no way that they can 'fudge' the results. 

Your point is valid.  It needs independent accreditation.  But that accreditation needs must be impartial.  And this is absolutely NOT evident from Poynty.  Nor for that matter - from Steven E Jones.  But in as much has Steve has indicated an interest in replicating - I may yet need to retract this opinion.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

If you yourself - want to do a replication then email me at ainslie@mweb.co.za.  I will forward you those papers.  Nor do any of us want that prize money that may or may not be on offer by you.  We're only challenging Poynty et al on that basis because it gives us the contractual  'right' to engage.  And I'm not sure that Poynty can refuse that engagement on any moral ground at all.  That he does not like me also does not cut it. 

 ;D

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2012, 06:00:53 PM »
My my you've been a busy little beaver Rosemary. So busy in fact that evidently you've forgotten to take your condiments.

Relax and get a grip on reality Rosemary.

When you can demonstrate proper measurement protocol and measurement interpretation, AND still produce an OU result, THEN I will consider your application for the prize. I am most certain Stefan would be in agreement.

Failing that, your measurements and erroneous conclusions were and remain seriously flawed.

I would strongly suggest you refrain from attacking the professor, Chet, and myself, and put that time to better use by brushing up on power measurement 101.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2012, 06:00:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2012, 08:53:58 PM »
Hello Poynty Point,

I was wondering if you'd write.  Always a pleasure to hear from you.  And I trust you enjoyed the seasonal festivities.  You mention something about not taking my condiments?  Condiments?  Not sure what you mean.  Condiments are the spice of life?  I'm not sure that you didn't mean something else.  Very confusing.  But indeed.  I do enjoy spices.  In fact I LOVE cooking.  It's a kind of hobby of mine.  Let me know what you actually meant.  I'm rather curious.   

Now.  You write that I've been busy.  On the contrary.  I should have been working on my thesis as it relates to gravity.  Instead of which I've spent the last 24 hours engrossed in this challenge of ours for your prize money.  Very alluring. And all six of us are MOST anxious to put our best foot forward and see if we can separate you from this.  Our intention is, however, entirely commendable.  Because when we've defrayed your travel costs then we'll donate the balance to someone like Gotoluc or some worthy experimentalist that you guys nominate - to buy some much needed broadband oscilloscopes. 

The conditions that we require may be slightly 'unusual'.  You see I've been following the comments that you subscribe to on that blog that you've dedicated to me - and that is simply an unfortunate schedule of some rather inappropriate hate speech.  Under usual circumstances one could appeal to Wiki to get you to remove that blog.  But frankly I get a real kick out of reading it - on a daily basis.  It reminds me how frightened you all are that the whole world may take our claim seriously.  And I see it as a kind of hysterical effort to try and prevent this.  It lacks a certain want of constraint - is my only criticism.  But good heavens.  It's always a pleasure to indulge one's freedoms of expression.  And, frankly, it's as well that I know how fond you all are of me.  Else I'd be left with the distinct impression that you didn't like me.  Golly.

Here's that link.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/

But.  To the point.  The sad truth is that your intentions there are probably to spread the word that our experimental evidence is based on fallacious measurements.  You're very likely trying to imply that I'm a 'fraud' - in your efforts to deflect public attention from our rather extraordinary results.   Which means that a certain 'partiality' has crept into your general approach to this question.  And none of us collaborators are at all sure that you'll test our apparatus fairly.  It will likely NOT be handled with any judicious and scientific protocols that are required.  You see the problem?  I hope.  Let me try this again.  You have all contracted  to evaluate a claim without detailing the apparatus that you intend applying in that evaluation.  You realise, of course, that on ours and, indeed most experiments related to this 'art' of 'over unity' that it relies on certain frequencies.  Therefore these required subtleties of tuning also require sophisticated measuring equipment.  And I'm not sure that you can access this.  Then, even when it's to hand, I'm concerned that your agenda may best be served by doing some rather clumsy tuning.  And then you won't find that benefit.   So.  We put our heads together and came up with a solution.  It's detailed in my blog.  Let me know what you think.

Here's that link
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/222-we-claim-those-prizes-offered-by.html

Regarding your claim that our measurements are wrong.  Not sure where?  Could you please point out where, in our paper, our protocols deviate from standard protocols.  I can assure you that our paper has been vetted by some rather weighty academics and, apart from one small error in one of our equations - it has only solicited the highest commendations.  And we have corrected that error in the pdf version that I sent you.  Feel free to publish it - here or anywhere.  And in the same way.  Feel free to comment.

I'm also a little concerned that you think I've been 'attacking' your - or indeed, anyone's good name?  Are you serious?  I thought it was the other way around.  I, after all, have the evidence in that blogspot that you contribute to.  What exactly do you based this concern on? Do let me know.  I'll attend to it immediately.  I'd be sorry to think that my comments are as mindless are those that are evident there - and indeed everywhere on your forum.

So.  Poynty Point.  I look forward to hearing from you again - in the near future.  It seems like this new year has started off well.  Certainly it's given me a renewed interest in these forums.  Much more dynamic - wouldn't you say?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose. 

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2012, 02:59:13 AM »
The sad truth is that your intentions there are probably to spread the word that our experimental evidence is based on fallacious measurements.  You're very likely trying to imply that I'm a 'fraud' - in your efforts to deflect public attention from our rather extraordinary results.
Being "fallacious" and a "fraud" implies that the person or persons behind it are fully aware of what they are perpetrating. This would be affording too much credit in your case.
The truth is that your results are erroneous not because you are trying to be fraudulent, but because of your ignorance regarding these types of measurements and circuits.
 
Regarding your link and silly offer, I am certain I've already made my comments above quite clear, and there is no need to repeat nor expound on them. If it is not clear to you, please have someone explain it to you.
 
.99
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2012, 02:59:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2012, 08:10:08 AM »
My dear Poynty Point,
 
Do I detect that spider - 'pinned and wriggling to the wall' that TS Eliot refers to?  Are you suffering from that 'too, too bright light' - that shines on your motives?  Are you concerned that we, the public, will learn that behind all that dismissive 'bluff and blunder' that you now flaunt - is an entire lack of any ability to evaluate any energy - at all?  Is that the problem? 
 
With the utmost respect I get the distinct impression that you - and Ramset for that matter, are both avoiding the issue.  Let me see if I can remind you both.
 
You only need to refer to our paper.  We detail the measurement protocol applied to our test.  Very well, I might add.  Then we extrapolate the values related to 4 tests which are a merely a small sample of over 100 tests that we have on our data base.  They ALL result in a 'negative wattage'.  Now, you and I both know that if the energy dissipated at a load resistor - (that thing that you refer to as POUT) - exceeds the energy that is supplied by a supply source - (which you also erroneously refer to as PIN) - THEN - in the immortal words of our astronauts - 'HOUSTON.  WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM'.   You see there is nothing within the standard model that allows for this.  The ASSUMPTION is that one can never exceed the amount of energy first delivered by the supply source - again that PIN thing. 
 
SO.  Not only do we prove that we exceed unity - but by the very measurements themselves - we prove that there must be supplied by an alternative energy source.  Which is REMARKABLE.  Because that goes against the standard model.  But all is not lost.  Because, you see this I trust.  Einstein himself proposed that energy is within matter.  We're simply able to endorse this fact.  AND.  We therefore MUST be able to exceed unity.
 
You know what I'm referring to here?  That PRIZE that you're offering.   ;D   It really is forfeit Poynty Point.  You need to swallow that bitter pill. And no amount of accusations against my obvious delusion - my clear want of intelligence - nor my dubious mental stability - can detract from EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that any evaluation of my own apparently criminal character, nor my age - speech, language preference, - not even the colour of my hair, the number of my teeth, my preference for breakfast - any of these things - is IN ANY WAY RELEVANT.  Its the measurements that need to be addressed.  And the method of analysis applied to those measurement.  Which may call on an uncharacteristic professionalism from you to evaluate.  But.  There you go.  That's what's needed.
 
Unless, of course, you're happy to let the entire world know that your prize offer is simply some kind of LURE to the unsuspecting - to then POYNTIFICATE on the results and DECLARE THEN VOID.  Surely not.  :D
 
Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie

(added)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2012, 09:52:27 AM »
Hello guys,

I'm just going to add this quickly - then I really need to do some work.

Poynty and others have managed to persuade some of you that our experimental evidence is 'fallacious' - I think is Poynty's new preferred term.  The thing that motivated this 'challenge' of ours is that they are all about to embark on yet another predatory excursion to hound out the claims of a certain Russian Professor who has some interesting proof of over unity.  It's done under the pretense of 'impartiality' which is absurd.  Not only does Poynty himself NOT know how to evaluate energy - but he applies a rather exotic terminology couched in equally exotic ACRONYMS - to prove his rather flawed argument - those Poynts that disperse at all angles -  'tangentially'.   I'm not sure of the right term.

 ;D

Ramset - bless him - knows this.  He is, therefore most anxious to let them adjudicate the results.  Which would be more appropriate if they - any of them - had a clue how to measure power.  But be that as it may.  More to the point is that there are some remarkable results that are evident in a certain Andrea Rossi's experimental evidence that delivers nuclear efficiencies without the toxic emissions related to the waste from a nuclear process.  IF they even addressed that much - then they'd appreciate that this extended debate over the existence or otherwise of any over unity at all - is NOW OBSOLETE.  It has, indeed, been conclusively PROVEN.  It's in the bag.  Done and delivered.  No more need to argue.  And all that is still required is the explanation for this energy - which has eluded us all for so, so long.

But rather than go there - they're still - rather obsessively - trying to quarrel with the evidence of more and more experimentalists.  Just know, if it's any comfort - that the access of this energy is now abundantly evident and that there is some very real cause for celebration.  I was rather hoping that I'd engage Poynty in a discussion about the basis of his denial of our own results.  I'm well able to argue their validity.  But he realises this and is, therefore, refusing to engage.  Sad.  In some ways.  But at least this exercise manages to highlight that rather unscientific attitude of his - where he prefers to 'bash old ladies' and allege anything that he wants with an entire freedom from the facts at issue.

I have still to address the response from Harti and from Steven E Jones.  Both are more disposed to accreditation.  I'll have to thrash out the terms though as Harti's requirement is not so much for COP>1 as it is for perpetual motion.  I'm a little concerned that perpetual motion is way outside our own claims.  But I'll get there.  It's important to establish the basis of proof - as it is to establish the measurements that are evaluated in that proof.  And Steven E Jones has expressed some real interest.  I'll need to find out on what basis.

I'll get back here.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Corrected.  'tangenitally' to 'tangentially'
GOLLY
 :o


 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2012, 09:52:27 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2012, 11:25:46 AM »
Unbelievable, attacking Ramset someone who has always done his very best to help anybody trying to develop free energy, 
he is truly a hero of the free energy community and has been known for his efforts for many years.

Rosie it is no surprise to me that you are still playing the blame game and the conspiracy theory card,
yes it gets you noticed and really that's all you seem to be interested in when it comes to your claims
and before you write me a long boring post the evidence is obvious for all to see by looking at your previous posts.

All your claims over the years have resulted in not one person on this forum being able to replicate your claims, including members on here that come to your defence.

Rosie's simple rule is this if you say her device doesn't work, then you will be attacked and accused of being in a conspiracy
and the reason why Rosie doesn't admit her mistakes and work with good people to develop a real free energy device is a sad state of affairs, because when she's not talking about her own claims she can make a positive contribution to this community

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2012, 03:09:25 PM »
Hi guys,

I'm delighted to see that Poynty Point has put our papers up for view.  HOW DOES HE DO THAT?  Anyway - for now, for those who want to read those papers - here's the link.  Hopefully I've done this right.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767

Its he second paper that covers the thesis.  The first is the experimental evidence.  It seems that exnihiloest has this to say about the paper -
 
The power provided by the function generator can't be neglected because the source impedence of a mosfet is much lower than the gate impedence. -
- Then I read: "The offset of the function generator was set to its extreme negative limit".  This means that the function generator provides continuous current and therefore extra energy that was not taken into account.  These papers make no sense, really a "fantasy world".


He's wrong.  We have measured the energy coming from the functions generator and factored that into our analysis.  It's clearly referenced in that same paper.  Can he read?  Anyway.  It makes not a blind bit of difference to our results.  They still show infinite COP.  Go figger.

Delighted with this development.  I had no idea one could make a file available to the public like this.  Thank you Poynty Point.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I've been trying to clean this up. That 'Bold' button screws up the presentation.  Is Harti aware of this?
Anyway it's the best I can do at editing this.

R
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 04:38:22 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2012, 03:09:25 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2012, 07:10:24 AM »
Hello Guys,

This is mainly for Harti, Poynty and Steve. Just a little bit more on the 'challenge'.  As you are now able to reference the paper directly - here is what the experiments prove.

That more energy is returned to the battery than was first delivered by the battery.  This is evident in the computation of wattage based on vi dt - the product of which results in a negative wattage.  Very carefully measured, using broadband oscilloscopes and cross checked through data dumps  and spreadsheet analyses from those scopes. 

This points to an alternate supply of energy from the battery itself.  Obviously.  Else the amount of energy returned should be equivalent to the that supplied - at best.  Now - it can be argued that the energy is coming from ground.  Or, alternatively, that the energy is coming from the function generator.  We disprove this by the following.  The function generator can be replaced with a 555 switch.  It gives us an equivalent result - STILL THAT NEGATIVE PRODUCT - but we're now restricted to the 'range' of potentials that we can test.  Which is why we continue using the function generator.  We also point to the fact that there can be no interference from GROUND - as the Tektronix Oscilloscope HAS NO GROUND and it gives PRECISELY the same values as our LE CROY.  And IF the energy is coming from the signal itself - which is from whatever it is that is powering the switch - then that is simply 'factored' into our equations as a power source.  And what it shows is that the amount of energy that is delivered in that signal - DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT HUGE SURPLUS OF ENERGY DELIVERED BACK TO THE BATTERY.  Indeed - it is the smallest fraction of the energy that we measure.

Therefore can we conclude that there is unequivocal proof of a source of energy that is available to that circuit that does not come from the battery supply.

That the material of current must have a charge to account for it's justification through those circuit components which would otherwise be prevented under usual open circuit conditions.  Under usual circuit conditions - when it's opened - then the battery is NOT able to deliver any energy.  Yet, here we have proof that DESPITE the switch being open - the circuit is able to generate STRONG current flows in both directions through that circuit.

Therefore we can conclude that current itself has a charge that determines its justification or path through a circuit.

Then we prove that with adjustments to the duty cycle and to the frequencies - we can vary that oscillation to produce a continuous current - an oscillation that can take water to boil - and an oscillation that has the potential to act as a booster converter - ALL resulting in that zero discharge of energy from the battery supply.

Therefore we can conclude that the technology has a potential to deliver low and high energies as required and depending on those settings.

The second paper points to the thesis.  It is argued that provided one attributes a material property of a magnetic dipole - to a magnetic field - then it can entirely account for this oscillation and for the paths that are evident in the flow of current.  Therefore current flow may have a magnetic property that has not been entirely factored into the standard model.  Without this theorised imposition of the particle and it's bipolar potential - then there is no explanation within the standard model.  And all we use are Faraday's Lines of Force.  In short - we argue that magnetic fields assemble in lines of force.  They are responsible for binding matter - or ATOMS - into their coalesced structures.  When they are open they can reassemble as open lines of force which would result in some evident 'charge' justification measured as voltage imbalance.  Or they can simply degrade or decay into a chaotic condition - in which case they can be measured as heat.  Or INDEED.  In the electric application of this - then we get evidence of BOTH voltage imbalance from some of those binding fields - AND heat from some of those fields when they are no longer in a field condition.  Which then compromises the 'bound' condition of coalesced matter.

Then we conclude with a discursive analysis where we point to the fact that all manifest 'sparks' 'fire' and 'flame' are simply these fields in their chaotic condition when they're no longer in their invisible field condition.  And being removed from their binding condition - they immediately compromise the bound condition of that material.  Now.  Being invisible is simply being 'out' of the range of detection of light.  Therefore it is possible that their velocity in a field condition exceeds light speed.  By the same token the 'sparks' and 'fire' and 'flame' are visible to light.  Therefore in the same way - their chaotic condition must be at a velocity that is slow enough for light to interact.  Also.  The sparks, fire and flame can be measured as heat.  Therefore through an extension of this logic - the particles themselves are as hot and as slow and as visible in a chaotic state, as they were previously cold and fast and invisible in their field condition.  Therefore - if these two states are just two aspects of the same particle - then this may, indeed, be the source of that electric energy that has eluded definition all these centuries.

BACK TO THE CHALLENGE

Clearly there are no members who are into theory.  So.  Let's leave that aside.  I put it to Poynty and Steve Jones and Harti - that not only have we proved that it is relatively easy to EXCEED unity constraints - but that current itself comprises this elusive 'dark matter' particle that all have been hunting for.  Surely that merits investigation?   And surely that merits our claims for their prizes?  After all.  We are using ABSOLUTELY STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS AND IMPECCABLE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 09:34:05 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2012, 07:34:51 AM »
And by the way - Poynty Point. 

You've rather underestimated the number of readers on my blog.  They far exceed the number on your own - but are not as high as Harti's forum.  Hopefully, as time goes by, that will change.  Every month increases those numbers.  I've been seriously tempted to go the route of capitalising on this - but will resist it as long as I can.

Wake up Poynty Point.  It's only YOU and your dogs who insist that we have NOTHING.  Just evaluate the evidence, for God's sake - and stick to the topic.  And make public your conditions for that prize you're flaunting.  We're determined that if its OVER UNITY you want to prove - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  We've got all the proof that you need.  And we'd rather enjoy claiming that prize.  The truth is that you actually need look no further than Rossi's technology.  I see you're avoiding mention of that like the plague.  It's that very big ELEPHANT sitting full frontal in your forum.  You'll have to acknowledge it eventually.  THEN?  What will you do?  My guess is that it'll put paid to your 'raison d'etre' and likely compromise your livelihood. 

Regards,
Rosemary


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2012, 03:59:33 PM »
My dear Chet,

If, as you claim - you did not provide that link - then - indeed - I, and one or two members who alerted me to it - must be entirely deluded.  Frankly I'm inclined to believe that you may have 'inadvertently' posted it.  Either way - it did not 'stop the world from spinning'.  And I was mildly amused at best because that - like so many other representations about me are absurd and rather comical.  You probably have seen them on that 'hate blog' dedicated to me.  But don't let that monopolise your attention.  More relevant to the issue are those many other points that I raised.  I wonder if I can impose on you to comment

It is a fact that we have proved that electric current has a dual charge potential.  It is a fact that we have measured infinite COP.  It is a fact that we have taken water to boil at NO MEASURED COST OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY.  It is a fact that these results were required and predicted in terms of a magnetic field model.  It is a fact, therefore, that we qualify for Poynty's over unity prize.  And it is also a FACT that Poynty has NOT  responded to our challenge for his prize.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps you can enlighten us.  You're knee deep in there.

It is also a FACT that ALL these forums are very carefully NOT talking about Rossi's technology which, frankly outperforms ALL our claims.  Again.  I wonder why that is?

Do advise us.  You really need to - if we're to engage in all this apparent enthusiasm for over unity results.  It would be very sad to learn that you never reference our own work because Poynty and Harvey have advised you all that it doesn't work. 

Regards
Rosemary


And Chet - please don't overlook this post of mine.  We're looking for some answers here.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2012, 08:48:07 PM »
Hello Poynty Point,

Regarding your claim that our measurements are wrong.  Not sure where?  Could you please point out where, in our paper, our protocols deviate from standard protocols.
You are quite aware of the analysis I performed, and the 42 page document that was posted. Here is a link again to that document:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=5403

If you can not open pdf files, I would strongly encourage you to join the 20th century and update your computer so that it will do so. Failing that, have someone print it out for your reading pleasure. I would urge you to study it well, as it explains all or most of your errors.

Quote
I can assure you that our paper has been vetted by some rather weighty academics...
I find this to be extremely unlikely. Post their names and credentials (I know you'll say they'd rather not). If they are indeed real academics, then they ought to join you in that power measurement 101 course I recommended you attend.

.99

 

OneLink