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 907460 times)

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #120 on: January 15, 2012, 10:36:33 PM »
What you are struggling to understand, is quite simple.

Power is conserved in every circuit. The amount of power delivered, is equal to the amount of power dissipated.

Refer to the simple diagram again.

NB. Using the correctly-denoted potentials and direction of current in the circuit as shown, the power in the battery is computed to be a NEGATIVE value (-V x I), and the power in the load is POSITIVE (V x I).

I know this has blown your mind Rosemary, so let me elaborate to make this more clear. The arrows denoting the clockwise direction of the current (RED) is also the direction you travel with your eyes as you are placing your scope probes (positive first, negative next) across each component**. Let's start at the ground potential on the battery negative:

1a) Starting from the ground upward, we see the potential difference across the battery is - to +, or in other words a negative value. So the "V" used to compute PVBAT is a "-V".

1b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, therefore the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PVBAT is a "I".

1c) The battery power then is: PVBAT = -V x I = -W (a negative value!)

2a) Now continuing clockwise from the positive terminal of VBAT, we see the potential difference across the load resistor is + to -, or in other words a positive value. So the "V" used to compute PRLOAD is a "V".

2b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, so once again the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PRLOAD is a "I".

2c) The load power then is: PRLOAD = V x I = W (a positive value opposite to that for PVBAT!)

The values of PVBAT and PRLOAD are equal but opposite in polarity, therefore if we assume no losses in the wiring, the sum of all the powers in any circuit is zero.

Once again in summary, in a circuit where the battery is supplying power, the power computation for the battery will yield a negative value. The loads in any circuit will yield a positive value for the power being dissipated.

Now, since your measurements in your paper yielded a negative value for the battery power, one must conclude that your batteries are on average, supplying power to the circuit.

However, since your scope probes across the battery are placed in reverse according to the polarity dictated by the path your eyes must take as you go around the loop as we just did above, you actually have the opposite result, i.e. one should now conclude that the battery is on average, receiving power from the circuit, because PVBAT would now be positive, and PRLOAD negative.

But alas, your scope probe placement for the battery voltage measurement is at the far end of several feet of battery cable, and the inductance therein is causing your battery voltage measurement to be skewed by the reactive impedance, i.e. phase shift, which has resulted in an incorrect voltage measurement when used to compute the power. Hence, not only is the polarity of PVBAT opposite in your case, the amplitude is wrong as well.

If properly measured, and with polarities accounted for, your battery power computation would yield a result showing that they are indeed supplying a net average of about 30W of power to the load, and yes it would be a negative value.

** As it is not always practical to place your scope probes according to the direction of current, the conventional placement of probes is to have them according to the potential difference across the components as shown. When a CSR is used in the ground leg of the battery, for convenience it's probes are placed in reverse to that of the battery. This all adds to the confusion regarding the polarity of the power in both the battery and loads (the CSR is also considered a load), but the point is to remember that the power polarity of sources and loads is opposite to one another. In cases like Rosemary's it is important not to construe a negative power value as to indicate infinite COP.

.99

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #121 on: January 16, 2012, 04:08:57 AM »
Good gracious.  Poynty Point - WHAT ARE YOU THINKING

When I've finished here, I'll take take the trouble to argue each and every statement that you've referred to in your last post - not because it's deserved - but because I'm ALARMED.  I'm alarmed that no-one is coming forward to say 'POYNTY ARE YOU MAD?'.   Bubba - Gravityblock - HopToad - EVERYONE has a sense of competence when it comes to the definitions of energy.  But they say NOTHING about this nonsense?  Have you FOOLED THEM TOO?  REALLY?  You really BELIEVE this rubbish?  You ACTUALLY, SINCERELY BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID?

Is this why you 'interjected' that curious conversation into your paper - with that poor academic who was relegated to a two-point rather inarticulate protest?  And all he could do was MUMBLE - in heavily edited 'blue' italics?  A novel convention, by the way.      Would that we could all validate our arguments by inventing the existence of a dumbfounded academic.  It would make life so much simpler.  lol.  Golly.  No need to apply logic.  Just take the standard model - throw a lot of confused arguments at it - like coconuts in a coconut shy - and then CLAIM endorsement from an unknown academic?  You're right.  If we did this, then we could, indeed, and very easily, simply turn the standard model of physics UPSIDE DOWN.  It ENTIRELY does away with the need for reason.

It's STAGGERING.  And then you have the temerity - the bare faced gall - to inform the ENTIRE WORLD that that it is I, Rosemary Ainslie that is fantasizing a new form of physics?  That I'm the VICTIM OF MY IMAGINATION.  Golly.  When all WE'RE doing, by contrast, is to SHOW ACTUAL RESULTS - as required - and measured using conventional protocols - WITHIN the standard model.  And this ONLY to expose a potential that has been somewhat OVERLOOKED. And, may I add,  which, in my modest opinion, has already been argued by both Einstein and Faraday.

Now.  Poynty.  CONCENTRATE.  For current to flow - it first and ALWAYS requires a SOURCE OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  That potential difference is measured as VOLTAGE.  THEN.  WHEN current is discharged - and provided that there's a path for that discharge - it will BE POSITIVE if THAT VOLTAGE SOURCE IS POSITIVE and it will be NEGATIVE if THAT VOLTAGE SOURCE IS NEGATIVE.  IN OTHER WORDS - it cannot and does not, magically ALTER IT'S POLARITY OR CHARGE - EVER.  Therefore, CORRECTLY - when the current is discharged by that battery in your schematic it is ONLY able to move in one direction through that circuit.  And, as you've correctly shown its directional path then it will be MEASURED as being GREATER THAN ZERO.  Had the VOLTAGE SOURCE applied a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE - then the current would have been LESS THAN ZERO.

I think your confusions - and I'm hoping they ARE confusions and not MISDIRECTIONS  - are based on the convention that determines that current flow is ACTUALLY from the negative terminal of the battery.  BUT.   IF YOU WISH TO APPLY THAT CONVENTION - then, you would also need to argue that the negative current is inducing a POSITIVE VOLTAGE over the circuit material.  And you see this I trust?  As you've shown them - those circuit components will ALL OF THEM - ACTUALLY measure a negatively induced voltage.  NOT a POSITIVE.

Really.  How many ways can you find to bastardise the standard model?  And AGAIN.  How is it that you can then ACCUSE ME OF DOING THIS?  It's no longer funny Poynty Point.  This is getting really serious

Regards,
Rosemary

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #122 on: January 16, 2012, 04:52:10 AM »
Nice try Rosemary

The fact that no one has objected to any points in my post ought to tell you something, and that something is quite contrary to the nonsense you've tried to make it out to be.

Study carefully and UNDERSTAND what is there. But I think we all know you won't, or can't, whatever the case may be.

Carry on Rosemary. But in case you haven't noticed, you've been talking largely to an uncaptivated audience, and I suppose that will remain so.

.99

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #123 on: January 16, 2012, 05:06:19 AM »
Nice try Rosemary

The fact that no one has objected to any points in my post ought to tell you something, and that something is quite contrary to the nonsense you've tried to make it out to be.

Study carefully and UNDERSTAND what is there. But I think we all know you won't, or can't, whatever the case may be.

Carry on Rosemary. But in case you haven't noticed, you've been talking largely to an uncaptivated audience, and I suppose that will remain so.

.99

Poynt Point - SO IMPATIENT.

I've just had to pop out for a while - just back.  But INDEED.  Unlike you I intend ARGUING your facile nonsense.  And I'm not trying to win a debate here Poynty Point.  There's nothing to debate.

BRB -    - which I believe is the internet speak for 'be right back'.  And NTSYT by which I mean 'nice to see you there'.  And HGIITICCC - by which I mean - 'how goes it there In The Cold Climes of Canada?'  And.  It's WPYBT.  By which I mean it's 'way past your bed time'.

Kindest regards,
rosie posie

EDITED - just some minor adjustments to my punctuation, spacing adjustments and a repositioning of this edit comment.  Anyway onwards and upwards with that post you're requesting - so sweetly.  And HOLD YOUR BREATH POYNTY POINT.  It's likely to ROCK.

And have now edited the edit.  Any to Anyway
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 06:20:30 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #124 on: January 16, 2012, 06:07:54 AM »
The trouble with your post is that it's a slew of entirely erroneous deductions based on entirely flawed observations presented with the characteristic heavy handed pomposity that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your agenda.  You're boring me to tears Poynty Point.  I've had to break up these answers into a series of posts and IF they appear to be getting too repetitive - then I'll try and find some means to abbreviate them.

Here's the first list of REFUTATIONS.  Golly.  I don't know why I bother.  It's not as if you're arguing real science.  Anyway.  Here goes.

What you are struggling to understand, is quite simple.

Power is conserved in every circuit. The amount of power delivered, is equal to the amount of power dissipated.
Not actually.  Power is NEVER conserved.  Energy is conserved.  And the amount of CURRENT flow x the applied source VOLTAGE X TIME is the amount of power that may be VARIOUSLY stored or DISSIPATED OVER the circuit components.

Refer to the simple diagram again.

NB. Using the correctly-denoted potentials and direction of current in the circuit as shown, the power in the battery is computed to be a NEGATIVE value (-V x I), and the power in the load is POSITIVE (V x I).
Not actually.  If the source voltage is positive - then the current flow will be positive.  If the source voltage is negative then the current flow will be negative.  The applied voltage across those circuit components MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT the source voltage that induces that current flow.

I know this has blown your mind Rosemary, so let me elaborate to make this more clear.
Not actually.  Pretentious, incorrect and befuddled science does nothing at all to my mind.

first break.

EDITED.  ADDED SOME MUCH NEEDED EMPHASIS.

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #125 on: January 16, 2012, 06:10:42 AM »
second installment.

The arrows denoting the clockwise direction of the current (RED) is also the direction you travel with your eyes as you are placing your scope probes (positive first, negative next) across each component**.
Not actually.  IF I am using a two channel oscilloscope and IF I did not place the probes as you have indicated - then I WOULD NOT be able to read any potential difference at all.

1a) Starting from the ground upward, we see the potential difference across the battery is - to +, or in other words a negative value.
Not actually.  The voltage across the battery is represented as a POSITIVE VALUE.  Certainly on every single voltmeter and oscilloscope that I have EVER used.  Regardless as to whether the source supply comprises anions or cations - lead acids or alkaline.

So the "V" used to compute PVBAT is a "-V".
Not actually.  The 'V' used to compute PVBAT IS ALWAYS "+V".  Unless you also use rather exotic oscilloscope probes?  Perhaps that's the source of your confusions?  I've LOVE to find a battery that shows me a NEGATIVE voltage.  Never seen it.  NO SUCH ANIMAL.

2nd break

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #126 on: January 16, 2012, 06:18:48 AM »
3rd installment

1b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, therefore the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PVBAT is a "I".
Not actually.  The direction of current flow will be positive if the battery voltage is positive.  And correspondingly the direction of current flow will be negative if the battery voltage is negative.  NEVER can any supply deliver a current flow in anti phase to it's polarity.  JUST NOT POSSIBLE.  And convention has determined that the battery is REPRESENTED as a positive charge.

1c) The battery power then is: PVBAT = -V x I = -W (a negative value!)
Not actually.  We've already covered this.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE - USING STANDARD MEASURING EQUIPMENT - to MEASURE A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE.

2a) Now continuing clockwise from the positive terminal of VBAT, we see the potential difference across the load resistor is + to -, or in other words a positive value. So the "V" used to compute PRLOAD is a "V".

2b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, so once again the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute PRLOAD is a "I".

2c) The load power then is: PRLOAD = V x I = W (a positive value opposite to that for PVBAT!)
Not actually.  You are confusing the energy over the load with the energy from the battery.  The one is stored and or dissipated.  The other is delivered.

3rd installment

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #127 on: January 16, 2012, 06:51:56 AM »
4th installment

The values of PVBAT and PRLOAD are equal but opposite in polarity, therefore if we assume no losses in the wiring, the sum of all the powers in any circuit is zero.
Not actually.  It's best to assume NOTHING - especially when such indulgences result in this catastrophic destruction of all reason.

Once again in summary, in a circuit where the battery is supplying power, the power computation for the battery will yield a negative value. The loads in any circuit will yield a positive value for the power being dissipated.
Not actually.  Unless you've determined that your battery is first capable of showing a negative potential difference.  NOT POSSIBLE.  IT DEFIES CONVENTION.

Now, since your measurements in your paper yielded a negative value for the battery power, one must conclude that your batteries are on average, supplying power to the circuit.
Not actually.  The fact that we computed a negative wattage OVER THE WHOLE CIRCUIT - rather leads one to conclude that we're accessing a second energy supply source.  Self-evidently.  As energy CANNOT simply come out of the blue.

4th break

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #128 on: January 16, 2012, 07:06:34 AM »
5th installment

However, since your scope probes across the battery are placed in reverse according to the polarity dictated by the path your eyes must take as you go around the loop as we just did above, you actually have the opposite result, i.e. one should now conclude that the battery is on average, receiving power from the circuit, because PVBAT would now be positive, and PRLOAD negative.
Not actually.  That nonsense about the polarity of the probes is presented in the rather reckless attempt at sharing your own rather sad confusions.  The polarity of the probes is IRRELEVANT.  It is the direction of current flow in relation to the applied voltage - that is of significance. What we measure is that the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is less than the amount of energy that is stored and then delivered BACK TO THE BATTERY.  Simple really.  But nonetheless amazing.

But alas, your scope probe placement for the battery voltage measurement is at the far end of several feet of battery cable, and the inductance therein is causing your battery voltage measurement to be skewed by the reactive impedance, i.e. phase shift, which has resulted in an incorrect voltage measurement when used to compute the power. Hence, not only is the polarity of PVBAT opposite in your case, the amplitude is wrong as well.
Not actually.  We factor in the impedance - and it makes not a blind bit of difference to our results.  Not only that but your assessment of the length of those wires is positively ABSURD.  And not only that but we can reduce the connections between the batteries to the BAREST ESSENTIALS and YET get those extraordinary gains.

If properly measured, and with polarities accounted for, your battery power computation would yield a result showing that they are indeed supplying a net average of about 30W of power to the load, and yes it would be a negative value.
Not actually.  I've explained this.  There is no such thing in the entire WORLD of science that enables the computation of a negative wattage from a battery supply source.  Not under any conditions AT ALL.  Which is why we are alerting our experts to this anomaly.

** As it is not always practical to place your scope probes according to the direction of current, the conventional placement of probes is to have them according to the potential difference across the components as shown. When a CSR is used in the ground leg of the battery, for convenience it's probes are placed in reverse to that of the battery. This all adds to the confusion regarding the polarity of the power in both the battery and loads (the CSR is also considered a load), but the point is to remember that the power polarity of sources and loads is opposite to one another. In cases like Rosemary's it is important not to construe a negative power value as to indicate infinite COP.
Nothing wrong with this advice.  INDEED.  NOR DO WE CONSTRUE anything at all.  We are applying CORRECT protocols to the evaluation of power dissipated and delivered.  KINDLY REFER TO OUR PAPER and not YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT OUR PAPER.  Where exactly have we applied any CONVENTIONS THAT ARE NOT ACCORDING TO REQUIRED PROTOCOLS?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #129 on: January 16, 2012, 07:20:24 AM »
There you go, Poynty Point,

You managed to schedule 16 ENTIRELY erroneous statements and then attempted to present them as IF THEY ARE FACT.  Which is exactly your preferred modus operandi.  WHO TRAINED YOU?  Because you're really good.

Guys - Poynty's intentions are to confuse the hell out of any reader here and then through those confusions - pretend to the authority to determine anything at all.  Which is EXACTLY why we're challenging him for that prize money.  Until he takes the trouble to FAULT our own paper and not indulge in this rather adventurous excursion into power analysis according to POYNTY POINT - then we'll NEVER qualify for that prize of his.  Which would be a shame.

I challenge you now Poynty - to REFUTE MY REFUTATIONS?  LOL.  Or better still.  Just FAULT THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS APPLIED IN OUR PAPER.  Else, unfortunately - you'll be conceding our claims - BY DEFAULT.

Kindest and best regards
Rosemary

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #130 on: January 16, 2012, 08:15:11 AM »
And as a general reminder to you all - here's the extent of our claim.

We are able to generate a continuous current flow through a circuit with a battery that is DISCONNECTED.  We measure an energy that is, therefore, NOT sourced from the battery and that is THAT robust that it is able to take water to boil.  What is more, under certain subtle switching frequencies it is able to operate in booster converter mode.  And what is more - the current through the circuit moves in both directions in the form of an oscillation that appears to BREACH the restrictions presented by the transistors.  And what is more - this is NOT a 'leakage' as implied by Curious Chris because the level of amperage is that high that it would nuke those transistors.  Nor is it the result of capacitance as Poynty is hoping to make you believe - again because capacitance cannot be responsible for inducing that continual flow.

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE - which, as we all know, has NO RELEVANCE to the standard model.

THEN.  We have detailed all this in a paper - which we are given to understand - will be published in due course.  MEANWHILE - Poynty Point and his minions have been going to considerable trouble to IMPLY and ALLEGE that I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.  Rest assured.  If I have none - then my collaborators most certainly do.  And their qualifications are FAR HIGHER than Poynty Point's qualifications.  He needs must paint me as a FOOL.  He is welcome.  But my foolishness is NOT the issue.  At issue are the DETAILS OF THAT CLAIM.  And unless he can refute them LOGICALLY and with the use of standard protocols - then he is ducking and diving with the outright intention to DENY our claim and DENY his need to award a prize - BOTH.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Again - an edit for emphasis.  LOL.

#### aether22

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1049
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #131 on: January 16, 2012, 11:18:57 AM »
And as a general reminder to you all - here's the extent of our claim.

We are able to generate a continuous current flow through a circuit with a battery that is DISCONNECTED.  We measure an energy that is, therefore, NOT sourced from the battery and that is THAT robust that it is able to take water to boil.  What is more, under certain subtle switching frequencies it is able to operate in booster converter mode.  And what is more - the current through the circuit moves in both directions in the form of an oscillation that appears to BREACH the restrictions presented by the transistors.  And what is more - this is NOT a 'leakage' as implied by Curious Chris because the level of amperage is that high that it would nuke those transistors.  Nor is it the result of capacitance as Poynty is hoping to make you believe - again because capacitance cannot be responsible for inducing that continual flow.

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE - which, as we all know, has NO RELEVANCE to the standard model.

THEN.  We have detailed all this in a paper - which we are given to understand - will be published in due course.  MEANWHILE - Poynty Point and his minions have been going to considerable trouble to IMPLY and ALLEGE that I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.  Rest assured.  If I have none - then my collaborators most certainly do.  And their qualifications are FAR HIGHER than Poynty Point's qualifications.  He needs must paint me as a FOOL.  He is welcome.  But my foolishness is NOT the issue.  At issue are the DETAILS OF THAT CLAIM.  And unless he can refute them LOGICALLY and with the use of standard protocols - then he is ducking and diving with the outright intention to DENY our claim and DENY his need to award a prize - BOTH.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Again - an edit for emphasis.  LOL.

It is an extremely impressive result!

I want to replicate it, here is how I believe it works roughly.

The circuit due to various design configurations is either aetherically charged (pretty common) and or has an aetheric current.
With the sudden increase of the electric current the magnetic field grows outwards, as it does so it takes the energized aether (orgone) with it, and electrons are readily transported by moving aether.

This is why Tesla and many since have found electrons being sprayed around the place, also this aetheric shockwave creates a gravity like impulse if it is changing (accelerating/time varying) which is how Morton and Podkletnov both created forces from spark gaps (they both refocused it).

As the current ceases the magnetic field collapses dragging the aether in and carrying with it flux from the environment that can induce energy into an inductor.

Now going back to the aether and electrons, there are many instances of electrons flying through the air, or closing open circuits despite voltages/energies being insufficient and the resulting damage (and danger of beta radiation).

This explains why the current moves through the MOSFET's without damage, I can give examples of others who have found such results, essentially though electrons carried in this way appear to tunnel and slip through with little damage.

Now I am not clear on where the flux is coming from in this circuit, it might be from the inductor coupling to some other part of the circuit or it might be from the environment into the inductor.

I am interested in replication of this circuit, but Rosemarry, you seem more intent to argue with trolls than give details of the right circuit to replicate.  Also is the inductor and resistor one element or 2?

Hopefully I am just being impatient.

#### SchubertReijiMaigo

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 343
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #132 on: January 16, 2012, 12:50:11 PM »
The fact is: the day who someone will SELF-LOOP the FE gen will be able to win the prize...
I don't even understand why there is not this condition !!!
The ultimate PROOF of the OU existence is SELF-LOOPING., removing that F****NG battery put a buffer cap and let's go to the infinity and beyond...

Even me, that I am an aficionados of Rotoverter and resonant like stuff, I keep a skeptic mind...
I will never applying a device that it can't be self-looped...
Even in my personal theories/Invention I still skeptic...
So if you want to prove anything, try self-loop please...

SRM.

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #133 on: January 16, 2012, 02:21:13 PM »
Once again, nice try Rosemary.

You've proved nothing at all I'm afraid, other than you can whip up a hell of a bullshit salad when you're hungry enough.

I would encourage you to stick to the arts...you've been gifted in that regard, but in technical aspects such as those you've clumsily ventured into, you're hopelessly lost...actually.

My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.

Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.

.99

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #134 on: January 16, 2012, 03:53:31 PM »
Golly Poynty Point.  You really need to learn that trick of 'arguing' your case - and not just spewing out a whole lot of gibberish - in the hopes that they sound 'clever'.  And it's not a 'nice try'.  No effort involved.  Just a tedious amount of time.

But, nonetheless.  Let's go over those arguments - one by one.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply
.    Standard oscilloscopes and sundry volt meters are able to measure a negative voltage at a battery supply source
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative.
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence.
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.

None of which constitutes a valid scientific argument - although as an excursion into a wild illogical kind of lunacy - it most certainly has merit.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie