THEREFORE when you state as you do here...
 

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.

then I put it to you that the bullshit salad you claim that I'm trying to toss - is actually your own recipe.  It is INDEED - a load of codswallop.
 
 And here ...
 

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.

where you seem to think you can adjudicate my talents - or lack of them?  I'm afraid you're somewhat under qualified. 
 
 And here...
 

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

And MY position stands.  Unless you apply those rather quixotic and nonsensical and unscientific parameters - then ACTUALLY, as you put it, OUR CLAIM IS VALID.
 
 We are ALL of us most anxious - to hear a VALID scientific argument to refute our claim.  Unless of course you prefer it that we do YET MORE ANALYSIS on that EXTRAORDINARY document of yours that you keep hoping has put our claim to bed.  Happy to oblige.  It's LONG OVERDUE that our members get familiar with these TACTICS of yours POYNTY POINT.
 
 As ever,
 Rosie Posie

Hello Cloxxki and Schubert Reiji Maigo,

You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.

Our own technology depends on the standard model.  And in line with this we both predict and measure losses.  All that we're proving is that the energy that is being delivered CANNOT be from the battery supply.  If, as we argue, that energy is coming from the work station of the circuit - from our resistor element - then the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that there is a potential here for the transfer of energy that will GREATLY enhance energy efficiencies.

And we attempt to give a rather detailed account of the thesis in support of this, in the second part of that two-part paper - if you'd care to dip in there.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Of course there will be losses. When these are subtracted fromt he energy multification, they should still suffice to be looped back to source, and leave some amount of output available for useful work. Be it keep the tea water warm indefinately, or powering a train that just goes around in circles and won't stop until the wheels come off.

Let's say it is established that a battery can over give 100 united of electric energy.
If you get 200 of heat out, then that's amazing.
Spend 50 on conversion losses (somewhat pessimistic for cutting edge technology), get 150 units of EE out.
50 units are used for powering a downgeared crane, lifting a very large weight.
100 are used to keep the battery charged.
 
Simplicistic yes, and room to wiggle, but this is my current view burden of proof for overunity.
Any thing less is only trying to reach the level of a pendulum with a magnetic pivot bearing swinging inside a vacume chamber.
 
Unless you can't or won't loop, you'll be only in the race for brightest AA powered bicycle light, best AA powered drumming bunny, efficient water heater (everyone has 2 or 3 of those in various forms), etc. OU has nothing to do with it.
Any type of energy can be converted. We humans are masters at it. If you get enough of the one, you can make enough of the other. Looping takes away the need for measurement discussions. Does YOUR car run forever on half a charge? Loop it, end discussion, and see Avenue Albert Einstein be renamed to yours. Even Tesla Square.
 
If you're not getting enough output to dream of looping it, yet claim OU, you're obviously going to be in a measurements discussion, or better: be ignored. Just 10% OU for instance, that's going to be pretty hard to loop. Will require the pinnacle in energy conversion to loop with significant output. It's not impossible though, and shall be your next step towards realizing OU. 10%, that's something I'd fight for.

Thank you for responce Rosemary,

You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.

A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...


You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)


SRM.
         

Thank you for responce Rosemary,

A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...

You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)

SRM.

Hello again Schubert Reiji Maigo

Just a small point.  I have difficulties addressing people by their initials.  Fact is I have difficulty addressing anyone at all by a pseudonym - which is the preferred convention on these forums.  I'm sort of compromising here - but is your name Schubert?  And then can I use that instead of your initials?  Just a small thing.  But it would save me a good 5 minutes embroiled in this ridiculous internal debate every time I answer your posts.

In any event.  Your points are entirely valid.  But there are a couple of downsides to our own technology that needs to be addressed.  We have only generated upwards of 100 watts.  IF we are to reach significant levels to take this technology to application, then we would need to prove that we can produce mega watts - as does Andrea Rossi.  To do this we need to generate a voltage across those transistors that, in turn, have a tolerance measured in the 10 000 volt range.  Thus far - they're not available to the market.  And if we used any transistor that does not have that intrinsic body diode - then we would need to embark on an entirely new path and explore the efficacy of applying external diodes.  Again.  It's probably doable.  BUT.  It would involve me, personally, in yet more experimentation and I have very little appetite or interest in this side of things.  More to the point.  I have also 'run out of budget'.  But even more to the point is that my interest is in 'thesis' which is my only overarching obsession.  Frankly - experimentation bores me to tears.  Which is where I kept hoping that all you talented experimentalists would take over the question and develop the required. 

Which is NOT to say that there is no merit or indeed, no 'need' to get familiar with the thesis.  You see.  Unless the thinking behind this energy is more fully understood - then we are all trying to make our way in the dark.  Just stabbing at possibilities.  Nothing actually understood.  Not an easy way to progress a new science that clearly NEEDS to be progressed.  What we have managed is to take existing proof of Dark Energy and locate this dark 'matter' in a 'field'.  But 'field' theory has never been fully developed or explored.  It has been mathematically JUSTIFIED by our string theorists.  But their math is obscure - even to qualified mathematicians.  And their reliance is on a fixed and immovable 'structure' rather than the highly charged highly mobile structure that we require in terms of our magnetic field model.  Hopefully, in due course, these questions will be addressed.  In fact I'm reasonably satisfied that this will soon become the full focus of our new physics.  ether - has already hinted at this.  And by his chosen 'nom de plume' it's likely he realises that this is the aether energy that was required by Tesla - and indeed - many of you here.  But that 'thinking' is considered eccentric if it is not incorporated into the standard model.  Which is where our own small contribution may have assisted this general drive.  Because we rely on this.  There is no marked departure of our proposals from KNOWN physics.

For some reason that is possibly better understood by Poynty - there is a neurotic frenzy to deny this.  BUT to deny it requires the outright dismissal of the thesis, the experimental proof of the thesis and the rather PUBLIC denouncement of my qualifications to comment.  The attack has been at all those levels.  And since I cannot personally take this product to significant market application - then I haven't minded that much.  UNTIL NOW.  When I realise that EVEN IN THE FACE OF ROSSI'S remarkable breakthroughs - these efforts in DENIAL not only persist - but they persist effectively.  I REALLY assumed that, for once, our 'nay sayers' would TAKE NOTE.  They haven't.  They're still at it.  And I now intend to challenge them ON THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS - that over unity AT ITS LEAST is ACKNOWLEDGED.  And I'm NOT equipped to argue Rossi's technology.  But I'm overqualified to argue my own.  Which is why I've revived this thread.

I do hope that's made it clearer.  If you - or anyone at all - wishes to progress this technology of ours - that may be a very good thing.  As Cloxxki says.  Any progress will only improve the situation.  But I - personally - must pass.  My mission now is to challenge our nay sayers on their own grounds and as it relates to our own evidence.  You have, many of you here, all presumed - for far too long now - that there's no proof of over unity.  This is wrong.  We have AMPLE proof.  I intend making you all aware of that fact.  That unity barrier has indeed been breached.  In fact it's a broken artifact that needs to be housed in a museum.  It has absolutely no further relevance except as an interesting theoretical constraint imposed - for too long - on our science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity. As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP. You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home. At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.

TK    - HOW NICE IS THIS?

It's always a comfort to me to see that you're concentrating on my history.  And INDEED - I've learned MUCH.  Golly. 

Did Ramset get hold of you?  He needs you to adjudicate in yet another 'debunk' related to cavitation? energy? - something?  He seems to think that you'd be the best choice to advance this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

By the way.  Did you read those arguments against Poynty Point.  I've rather made mincemeat of his nonsense.  Did he ask you to come to his rescue?  I fully understand why.

 

And BTW (by the way)  just to get the record straight.  We have submitted a total of 5 papers to the IEEE.  ONLY 1 WAS EVER REJECTED - and that was closely followed by an appeal to RESUBMIT.

You're casting those 'nasturtiums' - TinselKoala.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think you had an agenda.

But kindest regards, nonetheless
Rosie

Hello again you can just call me Schubert (It's the name of great composer since I'm pianist...) and Reiji Maigo something like Midnight's Child (a fictional apparatus in a Japanese Manga that can produce unlimited spiritual energy, it recharge itself every midnight...) It's a perpetual motion machine...


To respond to your earlier comment: Have you tried to hook up for example 5 heater in parallel the five heater will produce 500 watts, As I recall correctly you can find as low 150-200 watts Stirling engine...




In any case good luck to your research !!!