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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 933336 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #870 on: March 11, 2012, 10:12:45 PM »
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366    Reply
 #1121 on:
May 05, 2011, 06:44:30 AM

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.

BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA)
(confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical
engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their
hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at
 least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment
other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via
 SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my
 rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in
 a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was
withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And
 the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000All culminating in
our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had
15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP
 INFINITY -
and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle,
 MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat
disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I
 think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Actually I've just gone through this post.  It's actually really interesting.  At least it shows the range of engineers who have seen some of these
claims of ours.  Thanks to Glen for reminding me of this.  Albeit unintended.  LOL.  And NOTA BENE GLEN - NOT AN EXPERT
AMONGST THEM - with the entire exception of Professor Green - who REFUSED to look into the matter further - stating PUBLICLY that the results
were PROBABLY due to measurement errors.  Remember?  That's the same as Poynty's point.  If it weren't quite so sad it'd be funny.


Kindest as ever,
R
Just edited this to get it all onto one page.  Glen's trying to get this thread entirely unreadable.
added
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 03:01:50 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #871 on: March 11, 2012, 11:27:30 PM »
  " BUMP " Partial post from Rosemary ...... complete post shown ......
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315070/#msg315070   Reply #859 on: Today at 08:25:04 PM

Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.

.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366    Reply #1121 on: May 05, 2011, 06:44:30 AM

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.
 
BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA) (confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle, MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I'll be a "HUCKLEBERRY" ...... ;)

ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -

All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - :o


FuzzyTomCat
 8)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


RE-PRINT of ORIGINAL

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #872 on: March 11, 2012, 11:41:14 PM »

ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -

All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - :o

EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #873 on: March 11, 2012, 11:50:46 PM »
EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R

Yes, I do a Engineer is a College graduate or Expert

 8)

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #874 on: March 12, 2012, 12:03:35 AM »
Hi to whome it may concern   
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/9687/self-runner-ns-coil-pulse-motor-live-video-stream-its-been-going-for-months/msg260131/#msg260131   Reply #523 on: October 08, 2010, 01:43:42 PM


Guys this subject is being 'trashed' on another forum.  I thought I'd just post over some of the arguments against this and my reply. 


If you were to take this argument to its logical conclusion - then - in terms of this a natural diamond would have less energy than an artificial diamond.  There is no more or less potential energy in a lump of pure copper than there is in a mixed aggregate of the same weight.  Nor is more potential energy added to the mix as a result of applied heat or galvanisation or anything else.  Mainstream claim that the energy from mass is from the atomic mass.  It's just that in a refined state - it's likely to be more useable as required. Bear in mind that the galvanic interaction does not compromise the mass of either the copper or the iron.  Theoretically, they'll be there - into infinity.  So.  Also theoretically - if there's an induction process going on in Laser's rig - which clearly there is, then that too could be there for infinity.

But this argument also has to be seen in context.  Laser claims that the rotor can turn with distilled water.  If so, then there is no 'salt bridge' required for the 'galvanic effect' - which is battery related.  It probably just works better with the addition of salt.  Correspondingly, and confusingly, Bill claims that his rig works best if the sand is dry.  In which case one could perhaps argue a 'salt bridge'.  But in both instances one only needs to encase the entire coil in some kind of sealed condition - like a sealed battery - and either the slightly moist sand - or the slightly moist atmosphere around the coil - would make both the sand and/or the atmosphere - a third element in that rig.  Unlike a sealed battery it would never go flat.  That's got to be clean green - and virtually, dare I say it,  'perpetual'.

Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules.  We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.

The truth of the matter is that the concept of a battery supply source also carries the concept of a depletable source of energy.  That much has yet to be proven in either Bill's rig or in Lasersabers.  Frankly I think they're both carving out some interesting history for us all.

Regards
Rosemary
edit.  Sorry the math was out.   I've amended.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules.  We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.
 

Anyone like to "CHECK" the math shown above in "GREEN"  .......


FuzzyTomCat
 8)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #875 on: March 12, 2012, 12:24:47 AM »
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.

Please explain why you have included these two points and what is implied by listing them.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #876 on: March 12, 2012, 02:14:28 AM »
Please explain why you have included these two points and what is implied by listing them.

Hello Poynty Point,

Not sure what you're asking.  Is there something there that's ambiguous?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #877 on: March 12, 2012, 02:44:27 AM »
Hello Poynty Point,

Not sure what you're asking.  Is there something there that's ambiguous?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Yes,

I would like to know why you have included these two points and what is implied by each.

The question is clear enough isn't it?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #878 on: March 12, 2012, 02:57:19 AM »
Yes,

I would like to know why you have included these two points and what is implied by listing them.

The question is clear enough isn't it?

Poynty Point?  Just read the follow up post.  That's the reason I included these observations.  Still not sure of your question.
I'm a little bit concerned that this could go on and on.  LOL.  And BTW (By the way)  I'd also be grateful if you too could answer
some questions I've put to you.  That way we'd be co-operating with each other.  Which would be a really welcome change.

Nice to see that you're still so interested in all this.  Are you able to find an academic to endorse the protocols for that draw down
test?  That would be really nice.

Kindest regards Poynty Point.  And please extend my regards to Professor Jones.  I haven't heard from him at all - since I challenged
him for those coins.  Hopefully he's still interested in checking our claim.

Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #879 on: March 12, 2012, 03:06:45 AM »
Yes, I do a Engineer is a College graduate or Expert

 8)

Not actually Glen.  One only becomes an expert with a Doctoral award.  Anything short of that simply implies competence.
Our experts would be shocked to think that their qualifications are no better than a graduate's.

Regards,
Rosie Pose 

edited a personal pronoun.  LOL
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 08:16:52 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #880 on: March 12, 2012, 03:10:54 AM »
Poynty Point?  Just read the follow up post.  That's the reason I included these observations.  Still not sure of your question.
I do not know to what you are referring. I'd be grateful if you re-posted your response to my question, specifically dealing with those last two points I mentioned.

Quote
Nice to see that you're still so interested in all this.  Are you able to find an academic to endorse the protocols for that draw down
test?  That would be really nice.
I do not personally know any academics (that I can recall), and I have not pursued any. And I have no intention to.

Quote
Kindest regards Poynty Point.  And please extend my regards to Professor Jones.  I haven't heard from his at all - since I challenged
him for those coins.  Hopefully he's still interested in checking our claim.
I would suggest if you want to get the attention of Steven Jones, you send him a PM. If he does not wish to respond to you, then that is his decision, and I will not try to persuade him otherwise.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #881 on: March 12, 2012, 03:30:04 AM »
I do not know to what you are referring. I'd be grateful if you re-posted your response to my question, specifically dealing with those last two
points I mentioned.

LOL  No Poynty Point.  I'll pass if you don't mind.  I've already posted it over twice.  And I think there's enough of my posts littering this thread
now that Glen's getting into his full stride.  If only he had the ability to propose an original observation.  AND if only he could keep his posts to
the Thread size.  As it is - I'm inclined to suppose that he's trying to detract from this thread.  Surely not?

I do not personally know any academics (that I can
 recall), and I have not pursued any. And I have no intention to.
I thought you may have a tame academic in tow - as you seemed to make liberal reference to his reactions when you detailed that novel take on
a battery delivering a negative current flow.  I recall that he was 'astonished' I think was your description.  Perhaps that was just some kind of
literary license to lend you some kind of authority?  Not sure.  In any event.  I'm actually going to see if I can perhaps rally a couple of
academics myself.  But I'll wait for publication of the paper.  That way there's likely to be more cause for engagement.

I would suggest if your want to get the attention of Steven Jones, you send him a PM. If he does not wish to respond to you, then that is his decision, and I will not try to persuade him otherwise.
I'll defer this too - until I get that public demo under way.  And, if you don't mind - I'd like to reserve rights here.  I'm hoping that
publication won't be too far away now.   I'll keep you posted - in any event.

Take good care Poynty Point.  Your efforts in this over unity drive have been surprisingly counter productive.  Thank God.
Kindest regards,
Rosie

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #882 on: March 12, 2012, 03:41:00 AM »

LOL  No Poynty Point.  I'll pass if you don't mind.  I've already posted it over twice.
Alright, could you post a link to your response please? Or would you rather I guess which post it is?

Quote
I thought you may have a tame academic in tow - as you seemed to make liberal reference to his reactions when you detailed that novel take on a battery delivering a negative current flow.  I recall that he was 'astonished' I think was your description.  Perhaps that was just some kind of literary license to lend you some kind of authority?
I have no idea what or to whom you are referring.

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #883 on: March 12, 2012, 03:41:54 AM »
Wow those 3 readers are busy.  Over 1890 reads since last night.
Those busy little buggers.   ;]

Mags

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #884 on: March 12, 2012, 03:42:32 AM »
Rosemary Ainslie claims:

Quote
NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Rosemary, do you STAND BY THIS CLAIM, or do you not? Are your numbers and your conclusions accurate?

Let me repeat again: If Rosemary Ainslie says that this claim above is CORRECT AND TRUE.... then she is engaging in clear scientific misconduct by continuing to claim excess performance from the batteries when a correct calculation based on her data shows no such thing.

If on the other hand Rosemary admits that it is WRONG and NOT TRUE, then she needs to retract it and publish a correction.

(And in Fuzzy's example where Rosemary is quoted above..... 0.2 Watts is indeed a Ridiculous power dissipation figure for a pulse motor rotor.... ridiculously HIGH. A decent design should be able to run on a tenth of that or even less, as many of us showed during the Steorn Orbo replication days.)