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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 856398 times)

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #90 on: January 15, 2012, 01:23:10 AM »
Now clearly you must have gone to some considerable lengths to find some internet examples of this sorely ABUSED terminology.  So.  Let's see what they say.  The first is an article by Rod Elliott who in this link http://sound.westhost.com/efficiency.htm states...

'We will start with the assumption that the transistors in Figure 1 are 'ideal', in that there is no base current needed (they have infinite gain), and no voltage at all is lost when fully conducting.  The bias voltage is adjusted so that the transistors are exactly on the verge of conduction, but no quiescent current flows. Given that the supply voltage is +/-20V, this allows a peak swing into an ideal 8 Ohm resistive load of 20 Volts, which is an RMS voltage of 14.14V.  The peak current is 20/8, or 2.5 Amps, and this equates to 1.768 Amps RMS.  The power to the load is 25 Watts. <blockquote> P = V * I     or ...
P = VÂ² / R     or ...
P = IÂ² * R </blockquote> Where P = power in Watts, V = voltage, I = current, and R = resistance.  Voltage and current are RMS.  Note that the term "RMS Power" is erroneous - power is the result of RMS voltage and RMS current applied to a load, and is measured in Watts.  Although "RMS power" is not real, it has become accepted to mean that RMS voltage and RMS current were used to measure the power."

You notice that he first gives a schematic that locates the position of OUT AND IN - clearly - on a circuit.  Then he takes the trouble to define his terms.  He clarifies his argument.  He states, unequivocally that what he is referencing as P or Power is ACTUALLY Watts.  You need to follow his good example.  Which means that IF you really need to promote those eccentric terms of POUT AND PIN - that you FIRST show where - on your schematic - you refer to 'out' and 'in'.  And then - following the good example of Mr Elliott - you then explain that by P you actually mean to represent WATTS.  Who could argue with that?  I know I couldn't.

Notice too that he states 'power is the result of RMS voltage and RMS current applied to a load, and is measured in Watts'.  Again.  Who's arguing?  Those units of watts over time is the measure of power.  vi dt.  BUT PLEASE NOTE.  Power is NOT watts.  It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME.

By the way - I've again scanned that document.  I see absolutely NO reference to POUT OR PIN.  He does, in his table, have a heading Pout and Pin - if that's what you're relying on?  Not sure?  But IF this is it - then, indeed, there is no evident misuse of anything at all.  I do hope you see this Poynty Point.  HE'S DEPARTED FROM CONVENTIONAL USES OF A TERMINOLOGY AND THEREFORE HE FIRST DEFINED HIS TERMS

R

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #91 on: January 15, 2012, 01:26:00 AM »
Now to the second example.  Not sure of the author but here's the link http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html.  And here's the extract...

"Electrical motor efficiency is the ratio between the       shaft output power - and the electrical nput power. Electrical Motor Efficiency when Shaft Output is measured in Watt If power output is measured in Watt (W), efficiency can be expressed as:
<blockquote> Î·m =  Pout / Pin             (1)
where
Î·m = motor efficiency
Pout = shaft power out (Watt, W)
Pin = electric power in to the motor (Watt, W)"</blockquote>

No need to go into this in great detail as it's just more of the same.  Clear definitions.  Shows what he means by in and what he means by out and what he's referring to which is the use of P here represented in watts.  All entirely acceptable.  It all conforms to the requirement for perfect clarity.

R

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #92 on: January 15, 2012, 01:30:08 AM »
NOW.  To wiki in this link  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency  This was more confusing.  Here the term power is NOT defined - but there's a diagram to the left of that page that shows what is meant by 'out' and 'in'.  In any event - here's what it states.

"Energy conversion efficiency is not defined uniquely, but instead depends on the usefulness of the output. All or part of the heat produced from burning a fuel may become rejected waste heat if, for example, work is the desired output from a thermodynamic cycle.  Even though the definition includes the notion of usefulness, efficiency is considered a technical or physical term. Goal or mission oriented terms include effectiveness and efficacy.

Generally, energy conversion efficiency is a dimensionless number between 0 and 1.0, or 0 to 100%. Efficiencies may not exceed 100%, e.g., for a perpetual motion machine. However, other effectiveness measures that can exceed 1.0 are used for heat pumps and other devices that move heat rather than convert it.

When talking about the efficiency of heat engines and power stations the convention should be stated, i.e., HHV (aka Gross Heating Value etc.) or LCV (aka Net Heating value), and whether gross output (at the generator terminals) or net output (at the power station fence) are being considered. The two are separate but both must be stated. Failure to do so causes endless confusion."

It says absolutely NOTHING about the use of Pout and Pin other than it's use relates to a measure of energy efficiencies.  So.  I'm not sure that's clarified anything at all.

R

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #93 on: January 15, 2012, 01:41:05 AM »
THEREFORE, Poynty Point, I would suggest that your first two examples show us all a perfect use of scientific terminologies where those terms are first defined with impeccable clarity.  The more so when they're used outside their standard applications.  Always a good reach.  Wiki's definitions are a bit thin at this stage.  But no doubt someone will attend to it in due course.

If you - in the same way - could follow in the footsteps of those two early examples and DEFINE your terms then I'm reasonably satisfied that there is no-one in their right mind who could object.  What I've pointed out is that YOU DO NOT DEFINE ANYTHING AT ALL.  You reference OUT and IN without clear schematic explanations - and then you proceed to refer to POUT AND PIN and show us a computation in WATTS.  I put it to you AGAIN - that it is a travesty on conventional practice and it is an ABUSE of scientific terminologies as it is simply NOT CLEAR and and it most certainly is NOT standard practice.

But that was only one of the MANY objections that I listed.  Do I need to repeat them again.  Or are you going to address all salient points?   Here's a reminder of some of them.

May I remind you Curious Christopher - that Poynty Point has replicated our experiment on his own simulation program.  That he saw precisely the same results.  And that he then proceeded to amass the most curious analysis that has ever confronted standard physics and conventional thinking - by seriously proposing to multiply a positive voltage - with a negative voltage to substantiate what was meant to be an outright refutation of that proof.  And NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, confronted him with any arguments against those utterly fallacious conclusions.  THEN.  As if that was not enough - he proceeded to endorse, allow and even engage in the most serious exercise in slander that has ever disgraced these forums.  Nor would I have done anything EXCEPT THAT he then also encouraged a renewed attack on yet another hopeful experimentalist.  That he ignored the evidence of Rossi's extraordinary technology and yet will engage in these facile attempts at pack hunting claimants as his daily forum diet was actually more than I could stomach. I decided - FOR ONCE - to challenge him on his own grounds.  And that challenge still holds.  Clearly he is unable to answer it.  I can stomach any personal insults.  But I most certainly will NOT allow his continuing agenda to deny evidence in the face of that evidence.  If he is seriously looking for OU - then ARGUE OUR CLAIM.  We have measured proof.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

#### Bubba1

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 80
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #94 on: January 15, 2012, 02:37:46 AM »
Those units of watts over time is the measure of power.  vi dt.  BUT PLEASE NOTE.  Power is NOT watts.  It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME....

.99 is right:  "you are hopelessly confused about power and energy measurements".

Power IS watts.  Watts over time is the measure of ENERGY.

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #95 on: January 15, 2012, 02:46:24 AM »
Let's see, you mentioned defining the terminology...

From Page 33 of my document "detailed_analysis06.pdf":
Quote
Reviewing the methodology involved in obtaining the measurement of average input power (Pin), we have:

From Page 39 same document:
Quote
At this point, the equation for average INPUT power (Pin) is as follows:

Finally from Page 40:
Quote
So finally, we are left with an extremely simple, accurate, and accessible method for obtaining the average INPUT power measurement Pin(avg) for any DC source;

I don't believe I used the term Pout at all in the aforementioned document.

.99

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #96 on: January 15, 2012, 02:47:34 AM »
.99 is right:  "you are hopelessly confused about power and energy measurements".

Power IS watts.  Watts over time is the measure of ENERGY.

Bubba - For heaven's sake.  Watts represents the average unit of power delivered or dissipated - every second.  Power factors in the number of seconds that that energy has been delivered or dissipated.  I don't mind you claiming that this is fallacious.  Just as long as your own confusions don't spread as rampantly as Poynty's.  Poynty unfortunately owns a forum - and his confusions are positively contagious.

I am alarmed to see how anyone can, with any pretense at authority - claim that power is watts.  It is quite simply WRONG.  Really, grossly and fundamentally WRONG.  Until I see an unequivocal statement from some renowned academic - that argues otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #97 on: January 15, 2012, 02:53:08 AM »
Let's see, you mentioned defining the terminology:

From Page 33 of my document "detailed_analysis06.pdf"
From Page 39 same document:
Finally from Page 40:
I don't believe I used the term Pout at all in the aforementioned document.

.99

Dear Poynty Point,

HOW NICE IS THIS?  You've either actually corrected your own preferred terminologies or you've corrected that document.  Either way, delighted to see that you're no longer simply referring to PIN AND POUT.  Spare me the need to reference those multiple forum examples where this abuse was open for the entire world to read.

Now.  Are we going to reference your document?  If so then may I propose that you email me a copy of this?  Otherwise can we perhaps reference our paper?  OR BOTH.  Take your pick.  But I must first be able to read your document.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #98 on: January 15, 2012, 02:54:12 AM »
For the sake of posterity, this is priceless:

Bubba - For heaven's sake.  Watts represents the average unit of power delivered or dissipated - every second.  Power factors in the number of seconds that that energy has been delivered or dissipated.  I don't mind you claiming that this is fallacious.  Just as long as your own confusions don't spread as rampantly as Poynty's.  Poynty unfortunately owns a forum - and his confusions are positively contagious.

I am alarmed to see how anyone can, with any pretense at authority - claim that power is watts.  It is quite simply WRONG.  Really, grossly and fundamentally WRONG.  Until I see an unequivocal statement from some renowned academic - that argues otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #99 on: January 15, 2012, 02:57:10 AM »
For the sake of posterity, this is priceless:

Nice to see that I'm appreciated.  Thank you for the tribute Poynty.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Pose

#### Bubba1

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 80
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #100 on: January 15, 2012, 02:59:27 AM »
Bubba - For heaven's sake.  Watts represents the average unit of power delivered or dissipated - every second.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

No, Rosemary, watts represents the average unit of ENERGY delivered or dissipated - every second.

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #101 on: January 15, 2012, 03:01:10 AM »
Dear Poynty Point,

HOW NICE IS THIS?  You've either actually corrected your own preferred terminologies or you've corrected that document.  Either way, delighted to see that you're no longer simply referring to PIN AND POUT.  Spare me the need to reference those multiple forum examples where this abuse was open for the entire world to read.

Now.  Are we going to reference your document?  If so then may I propose that you email me a copy of this?  Otherwise can we perhaps reference our paper?  OR BOTH.  Take your pick.  But I must first be able to read your document.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

No changes or corrections made at all Rosemary. The document file is in its original form still dated 2011-06-18. You obviously never bothered to read it.

If you can't open a PDF file, I can't help you. This file I've already posted several times in several different places, even on Reply#52 here.

#### CuriousChris

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 278
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #102 on: January 15, 2012, 03:17:27 AM »

@Wilby, I answered the maximum I could without getting caught in a downward spiral, the one poynt99 seems to be stuck in with Rosemary.

The fact is, the cct Rosemary proclaims to have an impossible COP of infinity, is a very simply switching cct of which there are millions of in use everyday. Switchmode power supplies like the one you have in the pc you are using use the same basic design, much more refined of course but the similar nonetheless. Rosemary is to have us beleive there is something about her cct that doesn't present itself in those millions of others, that somehow her combination of values makes her cct achieve the improbable. She then proclaims that we should all believe her without actually doing proper tests herself. Although she claims to have done so.

Rosemary has now answered more of the criticisms in which she confirms she has not performed the tests to completion. Without driving the batteries substantially beyond their stated capacity there is no proof of anything. The purpose of the water is purely as a heatsink there is absolutely no need (at this point of testing) to take the water to the boil or any stated temperature. The entire purpose of the test is to prove that batteries last well beyond their stated capacity given the current draw. They should in fact never go flat if the cct indeed displays unity or greater.

On the point of replacing batteries with capacitors, I was aware that Rosemary claims to have tried that, and that it failed that test. that is why I immediately proposed that if she was unhappy with that she should do the 2nd test, the battery to exhaustion test.

Rosemary then tries to make outragious claims such as mere mortals can't prove OU. Why are we here then? If we cannot prove that, then whats the point.  What is the purpose of overunity.com?

There is also a major unknown in the cct. The signal generator. It introduces power into the system, it can't not. This part of the cct could be replace with some simple circuitry say a 555. or something more complex if the needs state that. but my point is there is an unknown which can easily be removed and thus accounted for.

This thread is very circular. one group of people saying you need to provide certain proofs, the other person and her supporters saying they have, then ignoring the first groups protestations of incompleteness of testing.

If Rosemary can prove the circuit can consume in excess of the batteries stated power rating (in amp hours) by a significant factor without going flat, then I am happy to join the host of believers. but she needs to answer other criticisms of her cct as well, such as the potential for the signal generator to influence the cct.  Until then, I like the others who think before they leap will continue to doubt her claims.

If you consider an attempt to support someone who has valid concerns which should be answered, As trolling then so be it. Rosemaries arguments are circular and she is very condescending. Trolling is probably not the right term and for that I apologise. but it is certainly improper.

If Rosemary fully believed she had some of such huge import such as a device with infinite COP (her words not mine).
Quote
I AM NOT CLAIMING AN OVER UNITY RESULT.  What we're CLAIMING is INFINITE COP.  And I have most CERTAINLY NOT refused to do any REASONABLE requests for tests.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/1725/  Why then has she not submitted it to a scientific journal for peer review. From there she could get the expert opinion she seems to want. Why submit it to this raggle taggle bag of hopefuls, many of whom don't understand even basic science?

CC

p.s.

Power is energy over time, To give it a name we call it watts (after James Watt), they are intimately connected. You cannot have power without energy, so you cannot have watts without joules, though of course the names could be different. If you exert 1 unit of energy (call it a joule) for a period of time (say 3600 seconds) you have consumed 3600 joules, or 1 watt hour.

To put it another way, we could say we have consumed 3600 joules of energy, but this statement gives us no indication of the time period this consumption occurred, was it over 1 second, 1 day, a year? 1 watt hour is simple, its an average of a joule for an hour. We could just as easily said "1 joule per second for an hour", but watt hour is easier. If we tried to say 1 joule hour. confusion arises. is it 1 joule per second for an hour (3600 joules), or was it 1 joule over an hour (1/3600 of a joule per second).

#### david lambright

• Full Member
• Posts: 211
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #103 on: January 15, 2012, 03:19:06 AM »
hi rose, dont worry, very soon you will be vindicated. i know you are correct and there is more to physics than we ever thought possible. we as a human race, if it can be imagined it can be DONE. dont be discouraged! stay in touch

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #104 on: January 15, 2012, 03:32:10 AM »
CC,

Don't fret too much over the function generator. It is actually dissipating some of the power off the Drain (through capacitive coupling). It is serving only to provide a positive VGS bias to cause the oscillation. If you were only interested in having a constant oscillation (as opposed to a burst oscillation mode which Rosemary is fascinated with), then the function generator could be replaced with a simple variable DC supply.

This was covered in great detail by me several months ago.

.99