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: 83987
  • *Latest: zacmag

  • *Total Posts: 892746
  • *Total Topics: 15668
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 735476 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #540 on: February 03, 2012, 08:26:55 PM »
Well then Poynty. 

Unlike you, we have applied measurement protocols that stand up to scrutiny and have the very real merit of conforming to the standard model - that prove our claim.  As I've mentioned we'd be more than happy to demonstrate this.  It seems however that you're rather more anxious to ignore our protocols and apply your own.  That certainly will disqualify our claim.  But I wonder if you could also take the trouble to list that criteria as a required qualification for your prize.  Then I think that we will all know better than to take that prize offer seriously.  And advise Professor Steven E Jones that I, for one, am increasingly concerned that he's actually not 'fighting the cause' so to speak, as he seems to pretend.  From where I sit he actually seems determined to ignore or disprove any claims and claimants both.  Not nice.  And not unlike yourself, come to think of it.  No wonder he gets his internet identity confused with your own.  I also happen to know he has the same heavy dependency on an overuse of undefined acronyms.  And I can see why.  There's no better way to spread confusion and doubt.  Always required if you're going to attack experimental evidence - certainly for purposes of hanging onto your coins or prizes or what have you. 

Anyway Poynt Point.  It's been a salutary little episode.  I believe a first.  I'm not sure that anyone before has managed to expose the extent of your 'strange science'.  Frankly we all assumed that you were well able to do elementary power analysis.  And all this time you were promoting an entirely different thing altogether. Still not altogether sure what it is.  Perhaps you can give us paper on it one day.  And when you write it don't forget to add that dialogue with those awe struck academics who are relegated to the sidelines and allowed very little say.  It's a rather entertaining convention you've managed there. 

I take it that our own results are thereby DISMISSED?  Would that be a fair description?  Based on the fact that our measurements do not comply to those required by yourself - and regardless of the fact that they comply to all known conventional methods of measurements.  That's a fair summation I think.  Oh.  And of course, because I myself am an amateur - halfwit - with no schooling to speak of and even less intelligence. 

Seems fair and impartial on the face of it.  So.  I'll not trouble you for that claim.  I'll just reserve the right to revisit this claim of ours should I continue to see that liberal attack that you manage against our technology and against any other claims that happen to conflict with your own eccentric mathematics.  I think you may need some reminding.  Otherwise God knows.  You'll eventually manage to DISPROVE all valid claims of over unity.  And that would be a crying shame.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #541 on: February 04, 2012, 04:43:25 AM »
Guys,

What's needed here is some kind of summation on the history of this. I've reworked this because the post was too long.

For the record.  From the get go - about 12 years ago - we could not get our demonstration to the academic table despite HUGE efforts.  Our First claim related to experimental evidence of COP>17.  About 20 engineers - probably closer to 30 - had seen that experiment.  Eventually we demonstrated this - and conducted other tests for - experts in SASOL, BP, ABB research (in North Carolina), SPESCOM and many other smaller electrical engineering firms.   Those listed above ALLOWED US TO USE THEIR NAMES AS ACCREDITORS in the publication of a paper on this which we FINALLY managed in a technical journal.  The then CEO of SASOL even went so far as offering a BURSARY AWARD to UCT to take this study further.  And that offer was declined.  We also demonstrated this apparatus at the MTN SCIENCENTRE - for an extended 10 days - ostensibly to alert those scientists at a conference there - to the existence of this claim of ours.  Not ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS even DEIGNED to see the demonstration which was available and in FULL SWING for the duration of that conference. 

That's some of the early history around some of the thesis behind these tests.

emphasis
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 02:32:24 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #542 on: February 04, 2012, 07:16:41 AM »
Anyway.  To continue/..

Now.  I DARE NOT include the history of this on these forums - which was the 'second generation' of this circuit's history.  Because that will simply engender a renewed attack.  Suffice it to say that the test was replicated - a paper was written and submitted to the IEEE - and it was REJECTED without going to review.  And subsequently the replicator denied those results.  3 of the 7 of us collaborators then embarked on a campaign to ENTIRELY DISMISS THE EVIDENCE based on multiple criminal allegations against me personally including claims of fraud, deceit and willful misadventure.  Alternatively, I was accused of ignorance, foolishness, stupidity, senility, poor dress sense, and on, and on, and on.  And, to boot I apparently have a penchant for wearing my pyjamas in public.  If only you knew.  I'm female.  Very much so.  Which means I MULTI TASK.  When I write physics I'm thinking 'SHOES'.  When I'm engaged in experiments I'm thinking 'SHOPPING'.  We all do.  We're genetically encoded.  I most CERTAINLY won't wear my pyjamas in public.  God forbid.  It would be impossible to accessorize.  Not that any of this matters unduly.  I only mention this to show you the sheer freedom of choice that they allow themselves in those EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS to diminish me in direct proportion to their denial of this experimental evidence.  It's actually quite funny.  In fact, reading their hate blog is the one thing in the day that has me rolling with laughter.  It's hysterical.  If I need a 'lift' - then I take a dip in there.  Such obsessive INTEREST.  Golly.

Anyway I need to get back on topic.  Here's where I made a BIG mistake.  I ASSUMED - that there was an ocean of goodwill in these 'energy' obsessed forums.  How little did I know. I really had NOT considered the enormous weight of all that competing and vested interest.  It simply  DID NOT OCCUR TO ME.  There was a billion dollar GLOBAL industry - based on carbon based fuels and nuclear power generation - that RELIES on perpetuating the STATUS QUO.  And to perpetuate that status quo they only need a few well fielded scientists to challenge the academics, those Fleischmann and Pons' of this world.  And on the other side it only needs a few well schooled in psyops  - to challenge the forums where claimants dare 'claim' any kind of over unity at all.  And it's that psyops program that I'd like to expose in this little exercise here exclusively related to THE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF POWER ACCORDING TO POYNTY POINT.

The schedule follows...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 02:33:19 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #542 on: February 04, 2012, 07:16:41 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #543 on: February 04, 2012, 07:17:19 AM »
Here's that list.
It is my considered opinion ...
 .   that anyone with 27 years of experience in electronics cannot seriously compute wattage from a measured voltage WITHOUT the flow of current.
 .   that nor can anyone seriously propose that the energy is not WHOLLY conserved but that Power IS.
 .   that notwithstanding Poynt's argument to the contrary, a battery supply source is NOT capable of delivering a negative current flow.
 .   that convention has adequately described polarities related to wattage analysis which convention impeccably represents all power measurements.
 .   that to apply his protocols one would first need to upend standard protocols.
 .   that it is catastrophically incorrect to claim voltage across a load resistor is consistent with the direction of the flow of current from a supply source.
 .   that Poynty relies on ASSUMPTION that our oscilloscope probes are reading the incorrect battery voltage.
 .   which flies in the face of the evidence where we apply those probes directly to the battery terminals
 .   that Poynty relies on eccentric and illogical deductions related to all these points to refute our claim
 .   that he also relies on eccentric and illogical deductions to refute his own simulated evidence
 .   that he relies on ill defined terminologies and acronyms to deliberately confuse our members with the impression of some higher knowledge
 .   notwithstanding the fact that he is aware of the need of all science to be clear - as is Professor Jones
 .   that there are those members who are not aware of the mathematical corruptions that he continually applies
 .   that they are both committed to the denial of all over unity claims - in principle and regardless of the evidence
 .   that the offer of a prize is a lure to the unsuspecting claimants that there is any serious intention of doing a sincere evaluation
 .   that they apply techniques of scorn - gossip - and traducement and slander -  to the claimants in order to diminish the claim by association
 .   that it is grossly unprofessional to engage at that level as this is, indeed, ACTIONABLE - SUBJECT only to a disclosure of their names
 .   that the stronger the claim the stronger is that traducement and the greater then is their criminal indulgence in slander
 .   that this is exercised as an abuse of 'freedom of speech' which in its essence requires a full accountability and disclosure of their names
 .   and that they hide behind pseudonyms and optional internet identities to avoid that accountability
 .   that their efforts are well rewarded
 
 Which I think more or less covers it.  If there are other points I'll add them.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #544 on: February 04, 2012, 08:15:49 AM »
HOT OFF THE PRESS GUYS.

Professor Steven E Jones has recommended the following for his PRIZE!   8)

Conditions for the OUR award:

1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes electrical, mechanical and heat-producing devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question.  The working device must be replicable.

2) Two OUR team members (agreed upon by the applicant) will make additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application, at no cost to the applicant.

3) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device (within thirty days of the completion of the OUR tests) -- then the Award will be granted.


the OUR team.


Dear Professor Jones,
We as claimants are therefore FULLY QUALIFIED TO SUBMIT OUR CLAIM.  In point of fact - WE'RE OVER QUALIFIED.  The problem is this.  We also rather depend on standard measurement protocols.  Poynty Point wants us to apply something else.  DO YOU AGREE WITH HIS INTENDED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL?

And may I remind you.  We have SENT YOU OUR PAPERS.  WHY DO YOU IGNORE OUR OWN PRESENTATIONS?  Do you ALSO recommend that
-  IF the claim happens to be in the form of a paper that is also submitted for publication
-  and IF that paper  ALSO includes my own name as first author

THEN  that the claim is also then DISMISSED - alternatively - IGNORED.  Because THAT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE.  Kindly address this our CONCERN.


Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
Another point - since I'm editing everywhere.  I realise it is ENTIRELY unlikely that either Jones or Poynty Point will ever agree to a demonstration
let alone an independent evaluation.   They dare not.  They'd have to CONCEDE that our circuit claim is ENTIRELY CORRECT.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 02:40:40 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #544 on: February 04, 2012, 08:15:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #545 on: February 04, 2012, 03:15:57 PM »
Anyway - pressing on - as I'd like to wrap this up.

They, that is, those who are schooled in psyops go to unusual lengths to dispute claims which include the need to 'attack' the computer systems of the claimant - on a regular basis - to tap their telephone calls - to discourage all discussion by unwitting members with the claimant by 'off forum' or 'secret' communications - to interfere with any SKYPE conferences including but not limited to the pretense of writing in the name of one or other of those in conference and thereby soliciting information or dispensing misinformation - as required.  They will publish so called 'open discussions' in a hate blog but repeatedly and continually DELETE any submissions that protest this abuse.  They will ONLY tolerate claims that are marginal - badly measured - or where the claimant's continued protest would be deemed to be 'half mad'.  Itseug's efforts being a case in point.  They will confuse those less skilled members by a welter of inappropriate measurements and analyses that have NOTHING to do with science and even less to do with the experimental evidence.  And they will pretend to an authority that is PATENTLY not theirs to pretend.

And just for a moment, think for yourselves.  What in God's name have I EVER done that could justify all that apparent 'dislike'?  Are they mad?  Who, in their right minds, spends hours upon hours, scrutinising and monitoring contributions that they conform to the right level of abuse?  What self-respecting scientist would spend even ONE MOMENT on a claim or a claimant - where their claims was patently WRONG.  WHY BOTHER?  Why schedule a list of rather badly constructed speeches that indulge PURE HATRED and NO LOGIC in answer to my own small efforts in spreading the word?  The appropriate reaction is to ignore it.  Don't go there.  Don't read that link.  If it's nonsense - then?  It'll go nowhere. SO?  I ASK YOU?  WHAt is it that we are claiming that justifies this EXTRAORDINARY and CRIMINAL and UNPROFESSIONAL abuse?  Why this need - these motives - saturated with malice - to take my persona - which is perfectly ordinary and somewhat mediocre - and make me out to be something that I am NOT?  Because a small switching circuit shows results that don't conform to standard prediction?  Because that's all we're claiming.  I put it to you that it's a tad excessive. 

Under usual circumstances - related to a sincere evaluation of science - there would be every effort to replicate the result or to THOROUGHLY investigate the claim.  That's the promise of these forums.  That's why we claimants engage.  What they're doing is to find justification for their less than scientific response by attacking even the 'dress sense' of the claimant?  What the hell gives?  Well actually.  I know what.  I know exactly why our own small contribution to the over unity cause - is THAT significant - as it relates to the THESIS - that it has sparked a  REAL panic that they resort to this inappropriate and disproportionate abuse.

Regards
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #546 on: February 04, 2012, 03:31:43 PM »
And here's why they need to SILENCE me - or alternatively - DIMINISH BOTH ME AND OUR WORK.

To begin with - it's probably as well to explain a little about the history and also the extent of our claim itself.  It's a two part exercise - a two pronged approach - so to speak, beginning, as it does, with the thesis.  What this proposes is that magnetic fields comprise a fundamental particle that is INDESTRUCTIBLE.  In other words this field is structured from a whole lot of magnetic dipoles that move together as a field.  That's their 'immutable imperative', so to speak.  They always move to a condition of 'best charge balance'.  And their best 'balance' is in a complex field structured, as has been taught us - along Faraday's Lines of Force.   Now.  I won't go into the more complex aspects of this - that relate to composites of these particles forming the photon, the electron and the proton - and indeed the neutron.  Because that's required for the justification of the whole of the field.  And that's also outside the scope of most of your interests.

What's relevant to these tests is only this.  IF indeed, these magnetic fields comprise particles, and IF they are also the 'thing' that moves through our circuits as current flow, and IF in so doing they simply 'reassemble' those fields, then what?  Surely?  Theoretically it would then possible to RECYCLE - so to speak - that current flow, into perpetuity?  In other words, if current flow simply moves away and then back towards it's source potential difference (measured as voltage) - then what could it LOSE - in terms of it's material? Those indestructible little dipoles?  The thesis proposes that it loses NOTHING.  Not one part of those fields are ever entirely lost to that source.  The ONLY thing that is varied by that movement is its potential difference.  It proposes that this movement to and from it's source is to increase it's 'best charge balance' condition by reducing its voltage imbalance.  So.  The fields go back home.  They return to their opposite terminal.  But when they get there.  When they've completed that 'orbit' through circuit material - then they can reassemble themselves, through an interaction with the material at that source. This includes those acids or alkalines or whatever.  And that way they can manage to LOWER all that potential difference.  They achieve their 'best charge balance' in response to that 'immutable imperative'. Nothing's lost.  Unlike Elvis, NOTHING has 'left the building' - so to speak.

That was the purpose of that very first test.  Here's that argument.  If we can take a current - store some of through induction onto circuit components - and then return it back to the battery to recharge it - then we're 'forcing' that system into a perpetuated 'imbalanced' charge condition and it would keep those fields busy trying to discharge all that recharged potential difference.  And IF, in so doing, we were also able to measure some energy being dissipated at the load - and IF the sum of that energy dissipated exceeded the sum of wattage first delivered by that flow of current moving with the full force of all that voltage - then we'd PROVE OUR THESIS.

Which is what we did.  And what we MEASURED was a COP>17.  Now.  That's pretty extraordinary.  We tried very hard to get this to our local academics to evaluate the measured evidence.  But they - understandably - would have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.  We held a demonstration of this in the conference rooms of Coopers and Lybrand.  Two academics attended that demonstration - SAW the measurements - and, a certain Professor Green - now retired - stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that, notwithstanding there's PROBABLY a measurement error.  And forever thereafter he REFUSED to evaluate that circuit apparatus - or do his own experiments.  IT WAS DISMISSED.  Rather in the way that Poynty et al are trying to DISMISS the evidence.

It is very important to them that this proposal of a particle in a magnetic field - DOES NOT GAIN TRACTION.  Because that concept would put paid to every outstanding paradox in our standard model.  And it would then put paid to the continued need for our fossil or nuclear fuel to power our rather extensive energy needs.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #546 on: February 04, 2012, 03:31:43 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #547 on: February 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM »
My dear MileHigh,

....IF
we made any errors in our previous 'first generation' - so to speak, tests, then that error was shared by top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES - all of whom were directly involved in experimentation.

I left out another possibility.

IF I was lying about this prior involvement - and AS this allegation of their involvement has been so WIDELY advertised on the internet - then I would, by now, have been in receipt of written notification from all those companies to RETRACT these statements - or I'd be facing a damages claim that would impoverish me together with a criminal action that I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND.

I am NOT THAT RECKLESS. I am not MISREPRESENTING anything.  That's yours and Poynty Point's particular speciality together with a host of others who NEED, most urgently, to cast doubt on these facts.

Again, kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

I've removed the most of this post to use later.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 03:40:14 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline The Boss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #548 on: February 05, 2012, 12:13:21 AM »
 
The address to the blog that Rosemary is imploring you not to read is:
 
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html
 
The Boss

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #548 on: February 05, 2012, 12:13:21 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #549 on: February 05, 2012, 04:42:44 AM »
Guys,

Hopefully this post should wrap things up.
 
The one thing that is MOST IMPORTANT to acknowledge - is that unity is a barrier that has been well and truly breached.  And the evidence is absolutely NOT exclusively with any of the experimental evidence that we, on this forum, have brought to the table.  The argument has been settled by Andrea Rossi and his E-cat.  Here's why.  While the evidence speaks to a nuclear reaction it cannot be supported by what is understood within the standard model.  There is absolutely no complete explanation that will allow for this.  Which also means that we will need to revisit our conceptual understanding related to the transfer of energy.  I am of the opinion that the final explanation will be entirely resolved in Andrea Rossi's own description of the E-cat - being 'a new kind of fire'.  And my own proposal, for what it's worth, is that this fire is, as is all fire, generated from magnetic particles that are chaotic.  The proposal, very loosely, is that in their structured or 'field' condition - then they structure themselves along Faraday's Lines of Force.  Out of the field condition they simply become chaotic.  Then they are 'big' and 'hot' and 'localised' within our own measurable time frame and within our own spatial dimensions.  These particles are indestructible and we argue that composites of these particles create a 10 dimensional binary system that is in line with our String Theories.

Now.  Discursive analysis is a valid tool of logic.  When it comes to the careful analysis of science theory - then it can be used to argue concepts.   And, at this stage, and because of the elusive nature of dark matter, it is actually all that we've got.  What I am trying to point to is that the time has now come when we need to establish some new paradigms that are bold enough to encompass a 'field theory' as required by our string theorists.  The reluctance to engage is, I suspect, because they use a kind of math that is bewildering even to expert mathematicians.  And that puts any speculative efforts out of reach of the expert let alone the layman. 

I have been to some considerable pains to assure you that credentials are NOT required to apply logic.  And logic is always and essentially simple.  It's our birthright - for God's sake.  And, if I have a mission, it is to share these insights - that we can ALL of us both understand that background field, and then USE IT.  To far better effect than even Rossi's E-cat.  Rossi's breakthrough technology will, I'm CERTAIN, salvage us from the onslaught that we're doomed to experience if we allowed the continuing abuses of our toxic energy excesses.  That thing that our well fed trolls rather frantically require.  It's a PERFECT interim measure.  But it's only touching on the fringe of all that potential that sits there - for the taking.  And I hope, before I die, that I'll be able to share these insights - with more than just the dozen or so, who, at the moment DO understand it.  And guys.  IT IS NOT MY DISCOVERY.  It has NOTHING to do with anything at all that I've initiated.  It is just that I have the rare privilege of understanding this in a conceptual context - which, I modestly believe, is within the grasp of EVERYONE.  And it really needs to be shared.

The ONLY reason that I took this departure from my usual - was to FINALLY challenge those trolls who lurk under the guise of 'reason' and 'credentialed expertise' to show you how they are FRUSTRATING and not ADVANCING new science.  And they're doing this through increasingly inappropriate methods that are now, simply backfiring.  Their motives are increasingly transparent.  And their deceptions along with it.  It is they and not US who are not only misrepresenting the FACTS - but are applying methodologies of analysis that contravene our established knowledge related to physics.  That's the irony.  They are literally contravening the established science in order to contradict the evidence.  And they DO THIS REPEATEDLY.  There is NOT ONE RELIABLE COMPUTATION ON THIS FORUM THAT HAS EVER BEEN MANAGED BY POYNTY, PROFESSOR STEVEN E JONES, TINSEL KOALA - OR ANY OF THEM.   And, frankly, I've had a belly full.

But to get back to the point.  That challenge.  That need to DO the experiment to DISPROVE our thermodynamic constraints.  That, I believe, is your own intuitive response to a deeper understanding that these BOUNDARIES CAN BE BROKEN.  And that knowledge needs to surface.  But it would - perhaps, be more efficiently used and employed - if there was a conceptual understanding to advance this in the first place.  In any event.  I do hope so.  In order to make a start I'm going to post over the discursive analysis in our own paper.  But I'm not sure that I want to do it in this thread.  I've asked Harti to lock this thread.  I'm not sure if he will as he hasn't answered me. In which case I'll post it over in another thread - in due course.  But I really think that this thread is otherwise and now, and COMPLETELY - DONE.  I do hope so.  Thanks for your patience - to all those who followed this - from both sides of the argument.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #550 on: February 05, 2012, 07:13:39 AM »

The address to the blog that Rosemary is imploring you not to read is:
 
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html
 
The Boss

At last.  And to think I nearly missed this.  And hello to you too.   I most certainly am NOT imploring anyone to avoid reading your blog.  I LOVE it.  It's richly entertaining.  Where have you misconstrued this?  I've taken the trouble to post links to it - early in this thread.  It is an enduring tribute to the mindless obsessions that you're all afflicted with.  It's rich with comedy.  And I love comedy.  I read it avidly, DAILY.

I only mentioned, in passing, that the degree of malice that leaks out all over the place, is somewhat disproportionate when you consider that I'm only a rather old lady afflicted with insufficient schooling and a heavily challenged intellect.  If we didn't know better we'd be inclined to assume that what I write actually MATTERS.  Which I'm sure is NOT your intention.  But that's the hell of it.  The more you write about me, the more people will read about me. And the most of them are certainly NOT inclined to be taken in by your rather UNPROFESSIONAL and INTEMPERATE display of  traducement and slander.  There are 'thinking' readers who are also increasingly aware of your agenda.  And I see that the crisis ESCALATES.  All this good news about the E-cat.  It must be KILLING you.  Every now and again one of your employees tries to throw some mud in that general direction.  But they're not managing a good argument.  The best was from Professor Steven E Jones, who recommended that we ignore those results because Rossi wouldn't engage in a discussion with him?   That reason lacks a certain strength.

Anyway.  Just to let you know.  I'm enormously flattered at the continued interest in my work - albeit that you don't seem to entirely approve of my efforts.  And I'm enormously grateful that there is that blog at all.  Else how could I justify my claim that you poor trolls are not only cowardly criminals  - who hide behind the security of your anonymity - but that you indulge in a level of discussion that is less than intelligent.  Your blog is all that I need by way of example.  And in as much as it's a running commentary on everything that I write - then it's a kind of 'endorsement' - albeit not always that flattering.  Great fun though. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
By the way
 
Just as an aside (JAAA)  8) I do hope I haven't missed any other of your posts.  I LOVE this kind of engagement.  It reminds me to remind everyone that - albeit just on the internet - you actually do have an existence.  Which also means that there are people out there who are really, REALLY worried about our claim.  Otherwise, I'm reasonably satisfied that you'd have lost interest in my ramblings - some time back.  I would have thought?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #550 on: February 05, 2012, 07:13:39 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #551 on: February 06, 2012, 06:52:49 AM »
Guys, I'm busy downloading the most of this thread to my blogspot - and have just seen that my confusions related to this post were that I assumed that he was asking me to argue this in terms his own rather pretentious little 'paper' as he calls it.  Such a PERFECT example of all that BOMBAST and his own CONFUSED SCIENCE ACCORDING TO POYNTY POINT - and, even more to the point, NOTA BENE.  He is stipulating the CONDITIONS to that award.  I'll comment as required. 

The essential message is this:
You will note the word 'ESSENTIAL". :o   Loaded with importance.  Golly.

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you
THERE IT IS GUYS.  A NEW and entirely unrelated condition required for his prize - that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. What, in essence he is now negotiating is this.  IF is pass this test, and IF I show some basic understanding of a rather elementary question related to equally elementary power analysis - THEN ONLY WILL HE CONSIDER ALLOWING ME TO DEMONSTRATE OUR DEVICE.  The kindest thing to say about this is that it represents a GROSS VIOLATION OF HIS OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATED TO CLAIMING HIS PRIZE.  Not only is it an arbitrary GROSSLY IRRELEVANT condition - BUT IT ALSO calls to question the competence of those of us who wrote that paper which, AT BEST, is SLANDEROUS.

That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY.
AND THEN THIS.  Note - again.   I need to show that I understand the polarity of the power assigned to the battery?  whatever that means, as it CONFLICTS WITH THE VOLAGE that's DROPPED over LOAD - whatever that means, and then he demands to know 'WHY'?  ::)

Which all is closely followed by this  rather pompous piece of work where he says ...
I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense.
which means that I MAY NOT REFERENCE A SWITCHED CIRCUIT IN MY REPLY. 

And then this.....
If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.
He DEMANDS THAT I SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY?  And this from a man who is trying to advance that voltage is 'dropped' across the load resistor - as a result of current flow from the battery supply - which is then also consistent with the polarity of THAT LOAD RESISTOR's VOLTAGE?  THIS IS ABSOLUTE UNADULTERATED AND ENDURING CLAPTRAP.  It is PROFOUNDLY wrong.  It is to science - what the SPANISH INQUISITION WAS to REASON and EVIDENCE.  Which, AT BEST, is an abuse of all good sense and violation of all good science.  WHY DO YOU GUYS NOT SEE THIS?  WHERE ARE YOU BUBBA?  GRAVITYBLOCK? - SCHUBERT? .... - EVERYONE?  Is Poynty allowed to indulge these eccentric philosophies in the adjudication of any claim for prize?  I guess so.  Because it is, AFTER ALL, his prize.  LOL.  What a JOKE

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory and power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.
And then this.  Rather conveniently - this CRITERIA is now applied to my collaborators.  We're all expected to RALLY and apply this extraordinary abuse to standard measurement protocols in order to first QUALIFY for a DISCUSSION of our results.  We must first conform to Poynty Point's eccentric mathematics and quixotic physics - UPEND known protocols as forged by our Greats and as applied by the entire scientific fraterntiy - and apply a variation which will ENSURE that not we, nor anyone ever again, in immediate or distant future - QUALIFY for their prize.  And that way.  It's a BREEZE.  NO-ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO CLAIM OVER UNITY.  LOL.

And then all this is followed with the earnest proposal that the amount of energy delivered b the battery supply is a NEGATIVE wattage.  And the amount of energy dissipated at the load is a POSITIVE wattage.  Actually he may have claimed it the other way around.  Either way.  It's just so WRONG that it's LAUGHABLE.  WELL.  I PUT IT TO YOU ALL that if this is what you members, here or on Poynty's forum see as being a valid scientific proposal - then these FORUMS are REALLY on a HIDING TO HELL.  And then.  God help us all.

From this point onwards - and UNLESS this is addressed - then there is clear evidence that not only are the members of his forum ENTIRELY DISQUALIFIED FROM ANY FURTHER COMMENT RELATED TO POWER MEASUREMENT - but that - for some reason - THERE IS THE IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT to apply utterly faulted measurements to the analysis of power.  Which means that they are - all of them - either UNABLE TO DO POWER ANALYSIS - or they are COMPLICIT in their requirement to DENY OUR EVIDENCE ON ANY ILLOGICAL, UNFOUNDED AND UNSCIENTIFIC BASES - AS REQUIRED. 

And MileHigh and Poynty SERIOUSLY propose that the readers here 'side' with Poynty Point and all this absurdity?  WHAT A JOKE.

I PUT IT TO YOU POYNTY POINT and to all those who ENDORSE THIS COMPUTATION INCLUDING AS IT SEEMS ALL THE MEMBERS ON POYNTY'S FORUM.  The correct evaluation of that circuit is 250 watts delivered by the battery  250 watts dissipated at the resistor.  And NEITHER NUMBER CARRY ANY NEGATIVE POLARITY AT ALL.  And IF you try and argue this - then go and argue it with the Professors at Harvard who write your text books.  They'll put you right.

R (regards)
R (rosie pose)

Much editing for emphasis - mainly.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #552 on: February 06, 2012, 07:34:12 AM »
I'm reposting this - for PERFECT CLARITY.  AT THIS STAGE WE ONLY HAD EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF a coefficient of performance (COP)>17 AND WE NOW HAVE MEASURED AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF INFINITE COP

My dear MileHigh,

....IF
we made any errors in our previous 'first generation' - so to speak, tests, then that error was shared by top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES - all of whom were directly involved in experimentation.

I left out another possibility.

IF I was lying about this prior involvement - and AS this allegation of their involvement has been so WIDELY advertised on the internet - then I would, by now, have been in receipt of written notification from all those companies to RETRACT these statements - or I'd be facing a damages claim that would impoverish me together with a criminal action that I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND.

I am NOT THAT RECKLESS. I am not MISREPRESENTING anything.  That's yours and Poynty Point's particular speciality together with a host of others who NEED, most urgently, to cast doubt on these facts.

Again, kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

I've removed the most of this post to use later.
added the fact that we now have measured evidence of an infinite co-efficient of performance.  And I highlighted it in Red - to emphasise this.
 8) :o
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 10:36:18 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #553 on: February 06, 2012, 11:43:58 PM »
Rosemary, your last posts demonstrate that you STILL do not understand the difference between power and energy. After all this time, that's really sad. I challenge you YET AGAIN to measure my TinselKoil in exactly the same way that you measure your circuit and see what you come up with.

And I see that you are still making claims about " top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES " -- claims that you have never been able to substantiate. I'll remind you and your readers that some of these companies have been contacted in the past couple years concerning your claims... and they never heard of you. Let's see your documentation of these supposed tests. If your invention is so great and was confirmed by all these power engineering companies...... why aren't they using your invention? Oh... wait..... your "invention" isn't an invention at all.... it's just a simple mosfet switching circuit, naively cobbled together and incompetently measured, and does nothing of interest to real engineers at all.

You have had ample opportunity over the years to produce documentation of the testing you refer to above... but you can't, because it doesn't exist.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #554 on: February 07, 2012, 12:02:04 AM »
http://www.isotest.es/web/Soporte/Formacion/Notas%20de%20aplicacion/TEKTRONIX/DPO4000/MEDIDAS%20EN%20POWER%20SUPPLY%20DPO4000.pdf

Did the information in this publication help you, Rosemary? Do you even understand the issues?
 

 

OneLink