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.

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 857148 times)

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #600 on: February 09, 2012, 02:50:57 AM »
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

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

Rosemary

Yes I can endorse negative current flow from a battery.  It all depends upon how "positive" is defined.  If you take a car battery and measure  12 volts, then reverse the leads and the meter then reads -12 volts, voila!  negative voltage, unless you think every meter in the world reads incorrectly.  You can do the same thing with a shunt resistor - you can read   or - amps, it depends on how you have the leads connected.
I think this has everything to do with your topic.  I have a really tough time following your explanations when you write "zig", when you should have written "zag", or whatever.
Bubba

Offline JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #601 on: February 09, 2012, 04:12:43 AM »
I wrote to Rose:

Quote
For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).


She responded to me:


Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery? 
   Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force? 

I guess it wasn't clear that I was proposing a test in which you use a non-leaky, large C capacitor in place of the battery to provide the input energy.  I hope that is clear now. 

Rose continues:
Quote
And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training. ...
Rosie.


I see.  The equation

Quote
E = 1/2 C * (V**2)

is found in basic textbooks and provides the energy stored in a capacitor having a capacitance C.  Yes, V**2 represents V squared.

Thus, the energy delivered to your circuit BY THE CAPACITOR will be,

Efinal - Einitial = Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

Quite straightforward, isn't it?

Offline Pandaman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #602 on: February 09, 2012, 04:37:04 AM »
The scientific community does not yet have some of the SI Units down to their basics.

For example, an Ampere's units are really Meters/Second, but this is not yet understood and so they continue to just use Amperes because they do not realize that "Charge" (Coulomb) is actually a unit of "Distance" (Electron Orbit Diameter).  The now accepted "Charge per Second" (Ampere) is really "Distance per Second" which is the same as Velocity.  The same mis-information applies regarding a Weber and a Tesla.  The units for a Tesla are Kilograms/MeterSecond but they continue to use Kilogram/AmpSec2 or Weber/Meter2.  The community also does not yet realize that a Henry is a unit of Electrical-Mass (Kilogram).  The true electrical units can be easily and clearly viewed on EinsteinElectricity.com

Gravock

I agree, it's getting very tedious.  But, if you cannot get the units right, then I don't see how you can get anything else right.  This is very basic.

Yes but it is the perfect way to hide the fact that you are not going to get a free energy device without acceleration.

So where is the acceleration in this device?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #603 on: February 09, 2012, 05:42:58 AM »
Golly - I've woken up to all this?  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to suppose that I'm swimming AGAINST popular opinion.   :o Who would have thought?   ::) Guys, girls, I'm simply trying to alert you all to the existence of some rather desirable energy that's been 'hiding' in our inductive and conductive circuit components.  For some reason you all seem to find  this is hugely undesirable.  And it seems that you all consider the niceties of our science references, considerably more important than this rather unusual evidence.  Which, I might add, we've gone to some considerable trouble to PROVE.  And the ONLY nicety that I'VE attempted to redress is Poynty's INVALID point that a battery discharges a negative current flow.  However, as Bubba has correctly pointed out.  IF we first take the trouble to invert our probes - then we WILL INDEED get our results 'back in line'.  This is unarguable.  In other words she is recommending that we take logic by the nose - twist in any any clockwise or anticlockwise direction, as required, apply the boot to it's rear end - and then?  Reason is FLOORED.  Science is UPENDED.  Logic is DEFEATED.  And that's precisely the argument that Poynty makes - albeit a little more circuitously.  Actually a LOT more circuitously.  No question.

Put simply - the argument that they are both relying on is that we that we take our conventional positioning of our standard voltage probes and apply it to the negative terminal of a battery supply source.  And, that way - unquestionably - Poynty and Bubba would most certainly be able to win their arguments.  EVERYTHING contained in these tedious >30 pages of this thread is then MORE THAN JUSTIFIED.  She's right.  He's right.  Why follow convention?  BUT.  That leaves me with a real problem.  Because.  IF current flow from a battery supply source is ASSUMED to have a negative polarity - then I may as well pack up, move away from this morass of nonsense and irrelevances -  and get some sleep.  Much needed I might add.

And if that isn't enough - our dear Professor Steven E Jones, who we all know is the soul of courtesy and tact (except as it applies to Andrea Rossi) is now appealing to you all, participants and readers BOTH ... to ADJUDICATE?  I get the distinct impression that he's ANGRY?  God alone know about what - or why?  No longer do I get the simple courtesy of a direct reply.  He is clearly EXASPERATED.   He SPEAKS TO THE FLOOR.  He will not even address me.  For some reason my open admission of a SERIOUS lack of intelligence and comprehension - is NOT TO BE TOLERATED.  I'm not sure that its entirely fair.  My lack of a functional IQ (intelligence quotient) has already been assessed and found wanting.  So?  Surely?  I deserve something better than this DEMAND that I follow his own 'references'.  I simply do not have the mental agility to encompass so many departures from standard protocols.  I REQUIRE supreme indulgence - if I am to participate AT ALL - in this poor evidence that is struggling - as much as I myself am struggling - to get ACKNOWLEDGED.  Certainly I would have thought that those of us who are so seriously intellectually challenged - would deserve more courtesy.  One does not, as a rule 'kick a cripple'. 

In any event.  I'll see if I can somehow salvage our dear Professor's good will - and get this argument back on track - in the context of the ONLY terms that I can understand - which are, unfortunately and rather prosaically, merely CONVENTIONAL.  I'll do that in a follow up post.  Right now I'm exhausted.

Kindest regards notwithstanding, and ever onwards
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #604 on: February 09, 2012, 06:40:18 AM »
And guys, Professor...girls?  All.

Here again is the schedule of rather preposterous CLAIMS that are proved by the experimental evidence of tests related to our circuit, detailed in our first part of that 2-part paper, witnessed now by some small fraction under 100 people - of varying electrical engineering skills but all of whom are COMPETENT.  And the results are broadly explained in the 2nd part of that 2-part paper.  These are not idle BOASTS.  Nor are the result of measurement errors.  And more to the point.  They're not FRIVOLOUS.  If valid - they unquestionably point to the existence of an energy supply source in inductive and conductive circuit material.  Which also means that we are using our electric current applications at something less than their full potential.  And this, like all such proof of ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLIES would, more than likely, be HIGHLY EXPLOITABLE.   

Here it is again.  Enjoy.  Or if this alarms you - then MOVE ON.  Because we're not able to cater to the faint hearted.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction


Kindest regards,
Rosie

I forgot to add.  THIS QUALIFIES US FOR THAT OVER UNITY PRIZE. And we're rather anxious to acquire this.  And more to the point - we NEED THAT PRIZE TO PROVE THAT OVER UNITY HAS INDEED SURFACED.  Finally found some air.  Ready to show itself.  Ready to be demonstrated.  The only question is how many excuses are going to be put in the way of that demonstration?  And when - in the history of science - has ANYONE been justified in DENYING EVIDENCE without first evaluating it?  CAN'T BE DONE.  IT'S A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #605 on: February 09, 2012, 07:05:22 AM »
Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #606 on: February 09, 2012, 07:40:00 AM »
Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Dear Magsy,

You're on the money.  As ever.  NOW.  That argument is PRECISELY the argument that BP used when they evaluated our circuit.  We had to do these tests over days and weeks where we tested one against the other in a series of tests that were designed to give UNEQUIVOCAL RESULTS.  We included those EXACT PARAMETERS.  We checked voltage drops against a control.  Exactly as you've suggested.  We even did that exact comparison in those tests that we published in Quantum.  Over a 17 hour test duration we found that the control was flat when our circuit batteries had barely discharged a fraction of a volt.   A Professor Jandrell at WITS university - reviewed that paper.  IN HIS WISDOM he REFUSED TO LET US PUBLISH THOSE SCHEDULES.  For the first time in HISTORY an academic required that we DECREASE the data forwarded as evidence rather than ADD to it.  Which may or may not be construed as a deliberate attempt to diminish that evidence.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  Our academics are no fools.  IF INDEED - the argument hinged on the evidence against an ACTUAL APPLICATION - and if that evidence related to an EVALUATION OF THE CHEMISTRY OF THOSE BATTERIES - which is begged by that argument - then HIS OBJECTIONS ARE VALID.  And our academics know better than pose an objection if it is NOT first VALID - ON WHATEVER GROUNDS.

SO.  The irony is this.  Since that event - then the entire THRUST of all objections to our claim is this - LET IT RUN.  Just run it for as long as required and then come back - in a year or two and represent that CLAIM.  I am on RECORD.  It is entirely UNREASONABLE TO SIMPLY RUN OUR OWN CIRCUIT AND GAUGE BATTERY DRAW DOWNS.  THERE ARE NONE.  CONVERSELY.  It is entirely REASONABLE to simply run our own circuit against a control and COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE.  That's definitely DOABLE.  But it will involve me in an ENORMOUS amount of time, and even the expenditure of some money.  Because those tests need close monitoring.  And I am NOT about to let those switches 'do their thing' without monitoring.  I've seen that off set button default - at arbitrary moments in our experiments - that it can feed enough energy though the system to NUKE that circuit apparatus.  It's too risky to leave it unattended.

HOWEVER.  I will GLADLY do this test.  PROVIDED ONLY that this then carries the written endorsement of qualified academics that this will represent unequivocal proof of our argument.  Otherwise - where I may satisfy your own criteria - or those of you who depend on this argument - we'll still be left WITHOUT ACADEMIC ENDORSEMENT.  They can still come back and say - 'SO WHAT.  You've omitted a detailed account of the chemical interaction of the batteries that chemical interaction may, indeed, fully ACCOUNT FOR THAT ANOMALY'.

I'm not about to be bitten twice.  It's NOT an easy test to set up - believe it or not.  And it is NOT easy to monitor.  And it certainly is NOT an option unless there is a WIDE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS THEN UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF.  I'm not about to waste my time - yet again.  Get me a couple of academics who will go on record stating that this is ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR PROOF.  AND I'LL DO THAT TEST.  WITH PLEASURE.

But I absolutely agree with you Mags.  I KNOW that the test that you propose here is CONCLUSIVE.  It's getting our academics to acknowledge this that matters.  I would LOVE it if all our members here simply did these tests for themselves, looked at that oscillation - and puzzled out it's existence at all - in the light of a disconnected battery supply.  But I'm REALLY only interested in convincing our academics.  Because - in the final analysis - if they are NOT convinced by experimental evidence then this and any other over unity claims are dead at birth.  Still born.  Aborted. 

Kindest and best and thanks for reminding me about this argument.
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #607 on: February 09, 2012, 01:29:56 PM »
Dear Professor

I do not know what to do with that last post of yours.  I am at a loss for words.  Actually that's not quite true.  I'm BEWILDERED.  Why has my freely admitted inability to understand your equations - resulted in this APPEAL - in big bold capitals - to the entire world?  You seem to be asking all to rally and take note of your moral high ground.  And I freely confess it.  You're up there.  I'm down here.  Manacled by an entire dearth of the required acumen needed to follow your argument.  I'm reasonably satisfied that you have one.  I on the other hand have NONE.  I can ONLY follow the arguments that are advanced by the most of our power engineers as they relate to elementary power analysis.  My poor brain can manage no more and no better.

So.  Let me get back to my previous point.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered by a battery supply source.  Actually no.  Also not quite the truth.  Again.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered on a circuit during extended periods when the battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  And then we measure the energy that is returned to the battery - also when that battery is entirely disconnected.  Actually - this is beginning to sound somewhat convoluted - even to myself.  So. Let me try this again.

Dear Professor.  May I simply ask you to READ OUR PAPER.  IF you are then satisfied that our applied measurements are ADEQUATE - for the purposes of evaluating the energy that is delivered and returned, then we can talk about giving you a demonstration of this.  IF you are NOT satisfied - then kindly point out where those measurements are NOT adequate and we will, IF required REWRITE that paper.

Hows that?  It will carry the distinct advantage of not buckling down to tests that clearly have already been conducted.  They've been described in terms of energy delivered vs energy returned.  And in all samples there is more energy returned to that supply source than delivered.  Then - in the final leg of this increasingly absurd thread - we can then discuss the question of the heat measured to have been dissipated.  Because the amount of heat that has been dissipated has absolutely NO bearing on the energy delivered in the first instance.  There is none.

I hope that makes it clearer.  And I'd be glad to hear your opinion. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #608 on: February 09, 2012, 02:54:21 PM »
TK - Why do you go on and on and on ... about this?
I have absolutely NO idea how to answer it in any abbreviated form that would be appropriate for these posts.  WHAT energy are you talking about?  From the top of my head I know there's chemical energy - magnetic energy  - nuclear energy.  There's energy of mass.  There's radiant energy.  And I don't think I've even skimmed the surface.  And Power - as I understand it - is the rate at which any one of those various types of energy is transferred.   Now. Let's see if YOU can answer a question.  WHY DO YOU ASK?  Is it because you ASSUME that I don't have an answer?  Is this some kind of 'test' where you can gauge my competence?  Are you satisfied that you can LURK in the background - and then impose these irrelevancies on this thread?

Rosemary

Irrelevancies? I ask you if you understand the difference between power and energy.... in a thread that is about measuring the Power and Energy of your magic circuit? A thread in which you post things like this:


Quote
Here it is again.  Enjoy.  Or if this alarms you - then MOVE ON.  Because we're not able to cater to the faint hearted.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Rosemary, I've put this here because I know how you like to go back and "edit" your old posts when they have been shown to be... wrong. You are making EASILY TESTABLE claims here... and they HAVE been tested..... and not verified. Just show a simple YT video of Claim 1, for example: A robust oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit.  None of your claims here are supportable by you or any of your "collaborators". I find it especially funny that Chessnyt has quoted Err-on Murakami, your sycophant from a couple years ago.... who, when he first started working on your circuit, didn't even understand how a mosfet circuit works at all, nor how to use an oscilloscope to make actual measurements. He also lies when he claims to be the "first" to demonstrate some things about your circuit... when we all know who REALLY did the definitive demonstrations of your circuit.

Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

This has been done, years ago, many times. Rosemary's circuit is less effective than heating water through an equivalent load with the same amount of DC power, and the batteries will drain faster, and I can prove this.... and so can anyone else who will ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.

Quote
[cite]Rosemary[/cite]We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered by a battery supply source.  Actually no.  Also not quite the truth.  Again.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered on a circuit during extended periods when the battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  And then we measure the energy that is returned to the battery - also when that battery is entirely disconnected.

Rosemary, if the past two years have proved anything, it is that you don't understand "standard measurement protocols".  For example.... please explain to me just how "probe skew" can affect measurements on pulsed power circuits.
 
And...when the battery is ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED...... you are able to measure "energy returned to the battery".... using "standard measurement protocols"...... but nobody else is able to do so....

Most people would have to have SOMETHING connected to the battery in order to measure it. But then we don't have your..... perspicacity.


Quote
Quote from: JouleSeeker on February 08, 2012, 04:56:48 PM<blockquote>So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).
</blockquote>
Quote
[cite]Rosemary[/cite] Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery?  Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force?  And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.  So.  I wonder if I could impose on you to simply follow this convention that has the very real merit of complying to standard protocols - albeit somewhat more simplistically than I suspect you require.  Indulge me.

For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

THEN. For wattage or units of power delivered back to the battery supply - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  And here we'll get an average of the watts delivered per second and we can then use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered back to the battery supply source.

Now, Professor Joule Seeker .... do you begin to see what you are up against? Rosemary doesn't understand the difference between power and energy, she doesn't understand the principle of integration, she doesn't understand what a capacitor does or how it stores and transfers energy, she doesn't understand basic conventions of algebra....... and she doesn't understand how to do power and energy measurements in pulsed spiky circuits.




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #609 on: February 09, 2012, 03:43:32 PM »
For the benefit of some of the "newcomers" to the Ainslie work, I've posted these links.

The original Quantum Magazine circuit diagram, copied directly without any editing:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/99a0a1d879266d1bb50a2c40c9e6cc5f0c8e30e32706364361cf95514355a1d65g.jpg
I invite anyone to build this circuit and tell us what duty cycle it produces at the load.

A scope shot showing Rosemary's "Random Aperiodic Hartley Oscillations" (RAPHOs) claimed to be essential to the effect..... or does it?
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f1ddc6a0bf5d36f2ece82f50c6ff02c00bf697f2ab212d386b983f6d18bec4265g.jpg

A YT video, one of many, that illustrate a test run on an Ainslie-Murakami (Aaron, Qiman, Err-on) hybrid circuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oehuoaIhts

Another YT video, illustrating that what Rosemary claims about her circuit CAN be reproduced, measurement-wise, anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcC7bCI8EM

A graph showing a time-temperature profile of load heating, comparing an Ainslie circuit performing according to her claims as far as all electrical MEASUREMENTS are concerned at 4.5% ON duty cycle from a pulse generator, with "RAPHOs" present, against a straight DC electrical feed at the same power level:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/c0a9d8c2e307dd7bddd9ae2c6a16abf694b48c90ed2abb5f467e9cc0d333ef615g.jpg
The load used here is a custom-built inductive-resistive load that matched Rosemary's stated parameters in the circuit for her original COP>17 claim, immersed in oil in a test tube, heating up water in a surrounding test tube, all well-insulated -- and may I repeat again.... the circuit I built matched Rosemary's electrical measurements, so it must have been performing "correctly"... right?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #610 on: February 09, 2012, 04:42:18 PM »
I asked Rosemary to explain the difference between Energy and Power. Here are a couple of relevant replies:

TK - Why do you go on and on and on ... about this?
I have absolutely NO idea how to answer it in any abbreviated form that would be appropriate for these posts.  WHAT energy are you talking about?  From the top of my head I know there's chemical energy - magnetic energy  - nuclear energy.  There's energy of mass.  There's radiant energy.  And I don't think I've even skimmed the surface.  And Power - as I understand it - is the rate at which any one of those various types of energy is transferred.   Now. Let's see if YOU can answer a question.  WHY DO YOU ASK?  Is it because you ASSUME that I don't have an answer?  Is this some kind of 'test' where you can gauge my competence?  Are you satisfied that you can LURK in the background - and then impose these irrelevancies on this thread?

Rosemary

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

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

Rosemary

Don't you GET it, Bubba? Words mean what Rosemary wants them to mean, and that can be different from day to day. You are trying to argue with someone who thinks that the definitions of Energy and Power, and their common units, are IRRELEVANT to the measurement of her circuit and the evaluation of her claims.
Not only doesn't she care what people commonly mean when they talk about Watts or Joules, she considers the whole issue to have NOTHING to do with the topic.



Once again, Rosemary: The Watt is a unit of Power. Power is the RATE at which energy is transferred or dissipated. (At least you got that part right, even if you don't understand it mathematically.) The Joule is a unit of Energy. Energy is the ability to perform work. Energy is the conserved quantity, NOT POWER. A Joule (one unit of ENERGY), exerted (or dissipated if you like) during the time of one second, is one Watt of power. When you pay your electric bill you pay for "WattHours" or Watts x time.... in other words ENERGY units. The Watt is NOT equal to the Joule, as you say above, and the Joule is NOT "one watt per second" as you say above. For your information, when we say "per", that is equivalent to division. One Mile Per Hour is the same as 1 mile/hour. The correct formulation is this: One Watt = One Joule Per Second, or 1 J/sec. One Joule = One WattSecond (sometimes written as Watt-second, where the "-" actually indicates multiplication), that is, 1 W x 1 second. In other words, a RATE times a DURATION. If only you had completed algebra you might be able to grasp the difference. And if you had gone on to study the calculus, like just about everyone you are trying to argue with has done, you might be able to begin to grasp where your fundamental error lies.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #611 on: February 09, 2012, 04:55:52 PM »
Good gracious TinselKoala,

If I didn't know better I'd say you're rather ALARMED at all this.  So much hard work in getting those schedules in order.  :o That HISTORY that you like to misrepresent.  8)   Those questions about my competence.  :'(   I trust someone is making this worth your while.  It seems rather excessive if there's NOTHING TO THIS TECHNOLOGY.  And that's EASILY PROVED by a DEMONSTRATION. If it's wrong - it'll be DISMISSED.  You see this, I trust?  Your opinions, your allegations, your rather obsessive interests in everything about me - rather proves that you're really, really worried.  WHY?  We all know that any claim that's nonsense will be shown to be nonsense.  The worst of it is that I'll need to address EVERYTHING that your ALLEGE - lest anyone ever believe you again.  So.  Let's see what gives.

Irrelevancies? I ask you if you understand the difference between power and energy.... in a thread that is about measuring the Power and Energy of your magic circuit? A thread in which you post things like this:
My understanding of energy and the differences between power and energy is/are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.  The only thing that is relevant is whether the applied protocols as detailed in our paper - are RIGHT or WRONG.  And I'm rather concerned that you assume the circuit is MAGIC?  We only claim that it's operating according to known physical principles - especially as it relates to Inductive Laws.  Read our paper.

Then there's this...
Rosemary, I've put this here because I know how you like to go back and "edit" your old posts when they have been shown to be... wrong. You are making EASILY TESTABLE claims here... and they HAVE been tested..... and not verified.
Which in turn relates to this little schedule that I'm delighted to REFERENCE as often as is possible - without boring the pants of our readers.  HERE IT IS AGAIN  ;D

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction


Which part of this schedule are you concerned with.  And what EXACTLY is your concern?  That I'm lying?  Again.  A simple demonstration will resolve this.  It's all I require and all I've asked for from Professor and from Poynty Point.

I'll have to split this post.  It's getting seriously long.
R

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #612 on: February 09, 2012, 05:17:10 PM »
TK's concerns - continued/...

Just show a simple YT video of Claim 1, for example: A robust oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected.

None of your claims here are supportable by you or any of your "collaborators".
On the contrary.  They're well supported.  Just check out the paper.  And if you want more data - ask me.  I can give you enough to sink the Titanic - or CERTAINLY enough to sink Classical prediction.

I find it especially funny that Chessnyt has quoted Err-on Murakami, your sycophant from a couple years ago.... who, when he first started working on your circuit, didn't even understand how a mosfet circuit works at all, nor how to use an oscilloscope to make actual measurements. He also lies when he claims to be the "first" to demonstrate some things about your circuit... when we all know who REALLY did the definitive demonstrations of your circuit.
We all know how competitive you are TK.  Unfortunately you're experimental aptitudes are seriously wanting.  Aaron on the other hand is - A NATURAL.

This has been done, years ago, many times. Rosemary's circuit is less effective than heating water through an equivalent load with the same amount of DC power, and the batteries will drain faster, and I can prove this.... and so can anyone else who will ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.
WE KNOW THIS.  I think, indeed, that you DID disprove it.  But you didn't manage EVER to get that Parasitic Hartley Oscillation.  So all you ACTUALLY proved is your own experimental ineptitude. I certainly don't count that against you.  It would have been EXTRAORDINARY - HAD you proved it - given your reluctance to concede to the principle of over unity.

Rosemary, if the past two years have proved anything, it is that you don't understand "standard measurement protocols".  For example.... please explain to me just how "probe skew" can affect measurements on pulsed power circuits.
My dear TK.  I've said this before and I'll say it as often as required.  My understanding or otherwise, my aptitudes or lack thereof, my intelligence - or stupidity - my talents, my lack of talents - THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.  The ONLY thing that matters is what we, as a group of collaborators - have written and presented as proof of the tests that we have conducted.  THAT'S IT. 

R

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #613 on: February 09, 2012, 05:29:41 PM »
And yet more of TK's concerns. They're endless - continued/...

Most people would have to have SOMETHING connected to the battery in order to measure it. But then we don't have your..... perspicacity.
Golly.  Perspicacity - no less.  LOL.  And this about someone with a heavily compromised intellect?   8) Or do I detect some heavy handed sarcasm?  God forbid. :o
 
And...when the battery is ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED...... you are able to measure "energy returned to the battery".... using "standard measurement protocols"...... but nobody else is able to do so....
Not actually TK.  I don't know anyone who's duplicated these experiments on this forum - or this thread.  If there are any - then do let me know.  I only know that Poynty Point managed this oscillation on his simulation.  And then he denied those results based on the fact that the NEW AND CORRECT protocol is to apply the probe of the oscilloscope to the negative terminal of the battery.  Which we PROPOSE may rather CONFRONT some rather well established conventions.

Now, Professor Joule Seeker .... do you begin to see what you are up against? Rosemary doesn't understand the difference between power and energy, she doesn't understand the principle of integration, she doesn't understand what a capacitor does or how it stores and transfers energy, she doesn't understand basic conventions of algebra....... and she doesn't understand how to do power and energy measurements in pulsed spiky circuits.
LOL.  I really don't care to deny this.  It makes for such interesting reading.

Gosh.  That's it?  No more on this post. 
Ok TK.  THERE'S MY REPLY. 

As ever, Rosy
Pose.
 :-*
I've taken out a whole lot of duplications.  Apologies guys.  I think I hit the paste button once or twice too often.
 R

 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #614 on: February 09, 2012, 06:05:40 PM »
Just as an aside and this is for our dear Ramset who OSTENSIBLY professes to support over unity,

In the light of these arguments do you SERIOUSLY propose that TK would be the right choice to arbitrate on that Serbian professor and his claim?  I think the evidence is rather OVERWHELMING that his mission is to DENY over unity - even if, as a last resort - he needs to attack the CLAIMANT rather than the CLAIM.  I wonder that you haven't asked him to adjudicate on Andrea Rossi's technology - or even LASERSABER's?  Is it because neither of them bother with these forums?  So all you're left with is me and our rather modest little efforts in this regard?

And by the way (BTW) - I still haven't managed to find out more about that SA motor number.  But I'll keep at it.  I think the best solution would be to write to Sterling Allen.  I doubt that those experimenters want anonymity else they'd not involve Sterling in the first place.  I'll let you all know if I ever do find out more. 

Regards,
Rosemary