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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

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: 84147
  • *Latest: top1

  • *Total Posts: 896240
  • *Total Topics: 15781
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 19
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 762465 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2012, 08:52:28 PM »
Hello again Poynty.

I really would rather you vet our paper and not your own.  It would be rather more appropriate.  But you're right.  I have NOT read your paper and nor will I.  I can barely understand your rather exotic terminologies.  And properly and correctly you need to REPLICATE our experiment OR JUST COME AND LOOK AT A DEMONSTRATION. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I might add that I find it EXTRAORDINARY that you can determine any test from NOTHING more than your opinion.  Science, may I remind you, is determined by experimental evidence.  And that evidence has been detailed in our paper.  IF you find something lacking - then ASK.  Dear God.  You're meant to be doing a sincere evaluation of a claim for your unity prize.  And instead of addressing the issue you're rabbiting on about your opinions.  We know them.  All.  Rather too well.  Perhaps we can impose on you to check out the ACTUAL tests and NOT your assumptions about those tests.  And INDEED.  I have had some very flattering comments on those papers. 

Regards, again,
R

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline david lambright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2012, 09:04:27 PM »
bravo rose!, great work. i believe that even with absolute PROOF, there will be those who refuse to see it. as for me, i believe in you. i KNOW your work is real, and verified. looking forward to hear more from you. again, great work, stay in touch.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2012, 09:09:31 PM »
bravo rose!, great work. i believe that even with absolute PROOF, there will be those who refuse to see it. as for me, i believe in you. i KNOW your work is real, and verified. looking forward to hear more from you. again, great work, stay in touch.

Thank you David.  I would LOVE to take full credit for this work.  But it really IS shared with the collaborators.  But I must admit.  I'm rather proud of those efforts of ours.

Take care
Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2012, 09:09:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2012, 09:31:38 PM »
Hello again Poynty.

I have NOT read your paper and nor will I.

Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2012, 09:43:53 PM »
Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

Are you speaking to the gallery here Poynty Point?  Are you hoping that those readers of this thread will be satisfied that there isn't some rather FRANTIC requirement on your part to DENY the evidence in the FACE OF THAT EVIDENCE?  Because, sadly, I would need to disabuse you.  We have experimental evidence that comprehensively blows the unity barrier into the DARK AGES - and it is presented with the niceties of measurement that cannot be REFUTED - based as it is on the most exceptional measuring equipment.  And that - properly - means that we are over qualified to claim your prize.

Now.  Let me presume to remind YOU about the status quo.  YOU HAVE NEVER REPLICATED OUR EXPERIMENT OTHER THAN ON A SIMULATION PROGRAM.  YOU THEN PROCEEDED TO FUDGE THOSE RESULTS IN A SPURIOUS EFFORT TO DENY THE EVIDENCE.  Your anxiety was to ASSURE ALL AND SUNDRY that there were no beneficial results.  You then presumed to attempt to ruin my reputation by widely advising all and sundry that I am half mad - and a fraud.  And RIGHT NOW you are most anxious to assure our members that there is NO MERIT in our papers.  I wonder at this excessive zeal.  Under usual circumstances any efforts - such as ours - to carefully measure and record a series of anomalous test results - would solicit NOTHING but praise.  Instead of which you appear to be trying to bury both our work and my good name - under a welter of what are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT personal attacks.  At the risk of misquoting our immortal Bard - 'something smells in the state of Denmark'.

Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2012, 09:43:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2012, 10:13:33 PM »
May I add - that these malicious efforts of yours speak for themselves.  It is INAPPROPRIATE Poynt.99 Recurring.  Utterly and completely inappropriate.  For some reason you aren't aware of this.  You seem to think that you lend credence to your damning assessment of my abilities - by simply spreading your opinion - like a kind of contagious disease.  The public are considerably more discerning.  And while you so urgently need to advise all and sundry that I'm rather ignorant and decidedly intellectually challenged - there is that in our work that belies this.  Which you know only too well.  All the more reason NOT to address the FACTS in that paper - but to try and keep the attention focused on your OPINIONS related to tests that you have NEVER DONE.

Extraordinary.  It's a crass stupidity to assume that public opinion can be manipulated.  It's that thing about the con artist.  You can fool some of the people some of the time - and so on.  But NOT ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.  And that time has now come Poynty Point.  Long over due.  But you'll need to work hard to deny the claims in that paper.  I'm sure it'll challenge your best efforts.  But LET'S SEE THEM.  Don't duck behind that ABSURD sense of moral indignation.  You really DO NOT OCCUPY THE MORAL HIGH GROUND HERE.  Just DEAL WITH THOSE CLAIMS AND THE THESIS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS.  JUST KEEP TO THE POYNT.

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2012, 07:38:37 AM »
Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

I see my previous challenge has STILL not solicited an appropriate response.  Dear Poynty Point.  Kindly evaluate our paper that deals with the experimental evidence of over unity.  IF YOU FIND ANYTHING AT ALL THAT MAY BE WRONG - THEN LET US KNOW.  THEN.  When we've established the protocols related to these measurements as required - we'll be in some position to evaluate those results.

THEN.  We would be glad to orchestrate some means by which you can attend a demonstration of the working device to evaluate our claim as it relates to those results.

DO LET US KNOW.  Unless you're prepared to acknowledge that your rather well flaunted opinion about me somehow disqualifies me and my collaborators from challenging you for your prize.  Which is hardly science.  That's more in the nature of a witch hunt.  May I remind you - that while I, myself, am not credentialed - those collaborators - to a man - are very well qualified - one having an honours degree and the other a masters degree.  And they ALL concur that those results are as detailed in those papers.  It's NOT exclusively my claim.  It is a collaborative effort.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2012, 07:38:37 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2012, 03:14:53 PM »
I see my previous challenge has STILL not solicited an appropriate response.  Dear Poynty Point.  Kindly evaluate our paper that deals with the experimental evidence of over unity.  IF YOU FIND ANYTHING AT ALL THAT MAY BE WRONG - THEN LET US KNOW.

Dear three readers of this thread,

Kindly take Rosemary by the hand and please explain to her that all the answers she seeks regarding the problems in her paper and experimental results can be found in this document.

Thank you.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2012, 04:13:44 PM »
Dear three readers of this thread,

Kindly take Rosemary by the hand and please explain to her that all the answers she seeks regarding the problems in her paper and experimental results can be found in this document.

Thank you.

.99

Golly Ponty.  You really need to brush up on your math.  Check with Harti.  I think there are well in excess of 800 hits per day here.  As ever, you're clearly hoping against hope that no-one finds this subject intriguing.  And that rather half starved little hope is kept alive, because you're also hoping that no-one will discover you're duplicitous intentions regarding that prize you offer. 

I'm afraid that - unless you allow our challenge for this then there is the very real likelihood that you'll lose all credibility as a 'promoter of clean green' - alternate energy - or even over unity.  And certainly no-one is likely to trust your intentions on this subject again.  They may conclude that you're actively working against any proofs of this.  AND.  That would be a shame.  It would likely wreck any residual credibility and with it - any residual respect that they may have for you.

Now.  Since you're patently reluctant to make public those 'objections' of yours as they relate to our tests - let me HIGHLIGHT the more exotic of those sad little arguments.  Starting with the POSITION OF THE PROBE. :o   There is NO QUESTION that if, INDEED, we reversed our probe positions - then we would measure 'under unity'.  The problem, unfortunately, is that it would be INCORRECT to do so.  You see this I trust. Science has well established protocols as to where the probes must be positioned.  You cannot whimsically propose to vary this, in the same way as you whimsically vary the very terms of power analysis in that PIN POUT nonsense.  There are already established protocols.  And they've been implemented by far better minds than either you or I can bring to the table.  :o

I would strongly recommend that you simply stick to  - adhere to - in fact, 'cling onto for dear life' - the already well established conventions when it comes to the assessment of power.  Golly.  Else we could allow every Tom, Dick or Poynty - to determine the very basis of physics when they have, very evidentially, very little knowledge of it.  And on these forums Poynty Point?  I would suggest that you've been going off at a tangent - which explains that curious 'avatar' of yours.  I just do not understand how you've got away with it for so long.  Why it is that no-one has challenged you on this?  Because to any academic or qualified engineer - it is - at best, confused - utterly illogical - and shows a remarkable level of ignorance about the fundamental principles related to the computation of power.  But - you are nevertheless CORRECT.  If we were to reverse those probes - then we WOULD INDEED - reverse our results. 

Now.  Here's what I propose.  Spare us the public evaluation of your power analysis - based as it is on those utterly illogical arguments - and SIMPLY EVALUATE THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS APPLIED.  Then move on from there.  It would have the very real merit of being appropriate.  You see this I trust.  It's OUR claim that needs to be evaluated.  NOT YOURS.  And we are best qualified to represent our own argument. Unlike you - our collaborators are well versed in power analysis.  And, also unlike you, they are far better qualified.  I am, therefore, inclined to rest on their advices, and on the advices of some renowned academics - when it comes to an evaluation of power.  It's not exactly an 'art in the making'.  It's well established.  Well known.  And ENTIRELY LOGICAL.  I'm not sure that you're qualified to simply recommend that we turn the measurement of electric energy upside down.
 
NOW.  I appreciate that you DARE not expose the grounds for your objections to our claim.  it would require an exposure of your rather quixotic arguments.  But here's a way around the impasse.  Just move on to our own arguments that form the basis of our claim for that prize.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  Changed 'of' to 'on'.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2012, 04:13:44 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #54 on: January 11, 2012, 04:22:51 PM »
 You must have missed my post, not surprising with your track record on interpretation of information, so here it is again

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 #55 on: January 12, 2012, 02:39:44 AM »
Guys,

It seems that Poynty Point is refuting our claim based on the pretext of his own analysis of this.  Kindly note.  He has NEVER replicated our experiment.  His earlier work on this was confined to a simulation of the waveform where he showed equivalent results.  He then - rather lamely - argued against those very results by stating that our probes should be reversed to get a true value.  This is INCORRECT and flies in the face of the established protocols for the measure of electric energy. 

My argument is that he should evaluate our claim in the context of standard measurement protocols.  That, after all, has been a science that has been very precisely defined by very prestigious scientists EVERYWHERE.  You cannot simply recommend the reversal of the probes and then seriously expect to extrapolate either the correct data or the correct analysis applied to that data.  And those terms of his.  PIN AND POUT.  They are essentially FLAWED.  Our entire argument is based on the evidence that the energy on our circuit is from what he calls POUT.  Which, clearly is PIN - if, indeed, our claim is valid.  The claim itself - is DENIED by those rather exotic definitions of his, that he's tried to impose on everyone here.  I assure you that there are no academic electrical engineers who would adopt those 'quixotic' terminologies.  And the pity of it is that the contributing members here seem to unaware of this fact.

But the truth is hidden even deeper than this facile rejection of the evidence.  The most of the forum members have no idea that they're being led by the nose.  Nor do they know that this unity barrier that is now comprehensively BROKEN has - in fact - been comprehensively broken ALL OVER THE PLACE.  We do NOT have a monopoly on it.  Where we DO have considerable authority is that we took the trouble to write this down in a format that is required by any reviewed journal.  And those measurements are impeccable - as they're made by top of the range equipment.  They cannot, therefore, be discounted on the basis of an inherent flaw in the extrapolation of that data.

And proof of this agenda is right here in this - our challenge to Poynty.  IF indeed, he refuses to evaluate our evidence - then I'm afraid he would need to justify his reasons for this.  And that would require him to DETAIL THOSE MEASUREMENTS THAT HE CLAIMS ARE ERRONEOUS.  If he does not engage - it is because he DARE NOT.  Right now he is trying to dismiss the claims based on his OWN replication.  That's irrelevant.  His tests are not OUR CLAIM.  We take the test to levels where we can boil water.  Indeed, we can even exceed that much energy - but for very short periods as the transistors COOK.  And all this with the measurement of current flows that absolutely DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH HUGE ENERGIES.  A simulation program will never show this.

In order to justify his rather RUDE dismissal - he also goes to some considerable pains to assure you all that - I am FANTASIZING.  IF, I am, IF all this is the product of my imagination - IF it's some kind of reckless claim based on an improbable DREAM - then in my defense.  I share that dream - that fantasy - with six qualified electrical engineers and over 100 engineers of varying skills who have either seen or replicated this - and, indeed, with our LeCroy and Tektronix oscilloscopes that keep on keeping on showing precisely these results.  We are all suffering from the very same delusion. 

I put it to you that Poynty relies on the wide dismissal of the very foundation to our claim - precisely because he CANNOT REFUTE THE CLAIM.  And he will beg off any TRUE evaluation of this because if he did - then he would have to acknowledge over unity.  Which is something that he will NEVER do.  And he also, therefore needs to assure all and sundry that I am variously MAD - or delusional - ignorant - and unschooled.  I don't care to comment.  But he would also then have to assure you that so is everyone else associated with this paper.  He has also tried to recommend that the paper is TO BE ENJOYED FOR ITS COMIC VALUE.  Again I cannot comment.  But in due course, and with their permission, I will schedule the names of those academics from international and famous academies - who have commended that paper on the basis of its clarity and who have, to a man, recommended publication.  It's a short list, thus far - barely a handful.  But that list is growing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited.  Change 'who' to 'that'.

 :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #55 on: January 12, 2012, 02:39:44 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #56 on: January 12, 2012, 05:02:57 AM »
Dear Harti and Seven E Jones and guys,

I think my arguments have now put Poynt's objections to bed.  He'll either ignore these posts of mine or attempt - yet again - to scoff them.  What he will NEVER DO is actually evaluate the experiments themselves.  Whatever way he jumps he's shown a partiality that is entirely unprofessional.  And we now have clear and public evidence of a reluctance to accredit these test results - NOT because he CAN disprove them - but because he CANNOT.  I would therefore appeal to you all to discount Poynty's comments on any tests by anyone at all that were done before and after this challenge of ours.  They are not based on scientific assessments EVER.  They're based on DENIAL for the sake of DENIAL.

Now onto Harti and to Steven E Jones.  Harti's qualifications for testing this apparatus include the need to test this continually over the duration of 3 months - among other things.  He's entitled to nominate his terms but I would appeal to him that - at the basis of his 'test criteria' is the requirement for - not over unity - but perpetual motion.  Not sure that this point is relevant but most of the members here are interested in motorised energy.  Very difficult to measure.  Doable - but difficult.  It would, perhaps, be more reasonable to establish this alternate proposal as a basis of proof.  Evaluate a battery's performance in terms of its watt hour rating.  Then apply that battery to the over unity test.  When the amount of energy dissipated exceeds that watt hour rating - then over unity is evident.  That may be considered as more 'fair'.  And subject to this minor variation to his terms and conditions, then we can certainly do those tests and conclude them in a time that is more manageable.

We have a problem though with the 'fine tuning required for these tests.   It really does require those sophisticated instruments.  I trust to Harti's sincerity in finding these results.  But provided he can get access to this equipment he will not be able to precisely replicate our settings.  Therefore there will be no point in sending him our apparatus.  Can you, Harti - please propose a solution.  Is there a way you can access broadband oscilloscopes?  Please let me know.  Perhaps with a bit of persuasion you can get a supplier to loan one for the duration required.  If not, then I'll certainly try and rally.

Then for Steven.  I get it that you're knee deep in tests related to our Serbian (is it?) - Professor.  Let me know what time you have available for our own tests.  And, more to the point, please advise us on your evaluation of our measurement protocols.  We've still to establish that as the basis of the tests.  We've forwarded our papers to you.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #57 on: January 12, 2012, 12:13:34 PM »

Now onto Harti and to Steven E Jones.  Harti's qualifications for testing this apparatus include the need to test this continually over the duration of 3 months - among other things.  He's entitled to nominate his terms but I would appeal to him that - at the basis of his 'test criteria' is the requirement for - not over unity - but perpetual motion.

To suggest that something that ran for three months could be classed as perpetual motion is ridiculous  ::) but typical of your flawed logic, you expect people to change everything to fit your criteria it's the same with your measuring.
As usual when you don't get your own way or you don't like what you hear it is always somebody else's fault.

If ther had been some successfull replications from members on this site then maybe some of your arguments might be worth consideration, but in all the years that you have been making these claims not one person here has ever successfully matched your claims. And you expect others to change their rules of entry and testing to suits your agenda  ::)


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #58 on: January 12, 2012, 08:46:44 PM »
The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component.  ;)

.99

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2012, 02:17:44 AM »
Hi Rosemary,
I have scanned now your 2 PDF files
and can not find any measurement results of the input power into the
Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 from the grid.

So these measurements are still missing and you certainly need to
add them to your other measurements and also use noninductive shunts.
Not these high inductance wire shunts !

As long as these measurements are not provided, it could all also be measurement
errors, cause you don´t know, how much power the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324
puts into the circuit.

Also it would be very wise to "unground" the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324,
so there will be no shielding ground current loops available, that could add power
from the shielding case ground currents.

So I would urge you to finally just do a circuit with a negative bias voltage onto the  Mosfets
and use a tap switch to a higher voltage spike to start the oscillation
and thus remove the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 completely from the circuit.

Also as this whole unit inclusive batteries is over 20 Kg it can not apply for the overunity prize.
See the OU prize conditions again.

Regards, Stefan.


 

OneLink