Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 939489 times)

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #900 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:06:29 AM »

"BUMP"

Obviously Rosemary doesn't get it even when spelled out in the Quote below and is a done deal ..... the evidence is shown by me in "COLOR" even a child could understand.

Rant all you want Rosemary everything to and including e-mails from Scribid, IEEE, Tektronix and others implicating you with nothing but proof and facts ...... not Rosemary's fictional delusions.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314745/#msg314745 Reply #791 on: March 07, 2012, 06:29:21 PM

Sorry to the three readers, I'm here to give Rosemary the "PRIZE" she so deserves and demands ....

No no no .... not one of money, I do not yield to false Over Unity demands!!!!

One of acknowledgement !!!

Rosemary Ainslie has won the most prestigious of all and will be featured this month at the grand opening of http://www.OpenSourceResearchandDevelopment.org this month !!!

She will have her own folder in the Over Unity Scams and Shams !!! Rosemary will have every document in existence from her beginning starting with the four (4) Patent Applications she made as the "INVENTOR" of electronic circuits until the NERD circuit today, including forum postings, e-mail correspondence, Rosemary's self made news articles and Quantum article plus forum postings and blog excerpts.

SO ...... congratulations Rosemary on you having the longest running fraudulent Over Unity scam going for over ten (10) years and the well deserved "PRIZE" you are going to get like it or not you "WON" !!!!

Well all .... don't miss the grand opening of the new NON Profit "Open Source Research and Development" site which includes a 24/7 "LIVE" broadcast feed w/ chat room http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment ( not a forum ) we will be featuring devices from the inventors or producers eventually and hopefully from around the world.

FuzzyTomCat

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #901 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:09:33 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:59:40 AM

Where did you "admit" to a miscalculation in the quote? Don't you realize that your "miscalculation", when corrected, INVALIDATES YOUR CLAIM? Are you admitting then, that your claim is invalid?

Good. We've finally gotten somewhere. I expect you to make a clear retraction, in so many words.

And where do I encourage Stefan to ban you? I want him to make you TELL THE TRUTH and ADMIT YOUR ERRORS, for a change. Banning you would be too easy.

You so wish this TK. Our claim is detailed in our paper. That has nothing to do with anything about battery duration or battery draw downs. The ONLY battery claim that I'm prepared to make - definitively - is when there's a test designed for this. Then I'll engage. Do you EVER read anything other than your own posts?

And yes. It is INEVITABLE that the kind of posts that you and Glen Lettenmaier are posting are designed to wreck this thread and then get me banned. Do you really think that no-one realises this? Especially when your reliance on these techniques have managed it in the past? IF Harti bans me from this thread - then it will be clear evidence that NONE OF YOU actually want to explore proof of over unity. Because that is what we claim. And it's based on MEASURED EVIDENCE ONLY. NOTHING TO DO WITH BATTERY PERFORMANCE.

Again
Rosemary

eatenbyagrue · « **Reply #902 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:20:16 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:57:06 AM

Nowhere do I detect an answer to the questions I have asked about your calculations and your statement that a Joule is a Watt per Second. But presumably you mean to say this:

"YES, I stand by my claim and my calculations as presented in the quote. And a Joule is a Watt per Second."

Is that a fair statement of your position, or not?

Come on, she obviously meant that a watt is a joule per second. With all you guys bashing her all the time, it is an understandable mistake, as it is stressful to try to defend one's work against people who just want to bash it.

Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it? Just let her experiment in peace. I get it, you do not like her invention. I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure. But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #903 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:23:18 AM »

And just to get some sanity back into these altercations. Here's the thing. It is ENTIRELY thanks to this 'flaming' that my previous claims about this are validated. LOL. There's always some exploitable value even in this level of traducement.

But guys - we most certainly DO have an exploitable technology - and it most certainly IS showing evidence of an INFINITE COP. And I will most certainly do that battery draw down test to prove this. But I need to wait for the publication of our paper. Not too far away. And then I hope to conclude this thread with - a posting of both papers - and a live streaming of that final battery draw down test. And it will, most certainly, include the protocols defined by our experts - academic or otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

TinselKoala · « **Reply #904 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:36:53 AM »

Rosemary seems to think that her "miscalculation" is trivial. Let me break it down, since the gist may have been lost by this time.

First, she calculates the energy content of her batteries based on the amp-hour rating:

Quote

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.

Nothing too objectionable here; so there are something over 10 million Joules available in the batteries if fully charged.

Now.... let's look at her calculation of the energy used in the test.

Quote

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.

The definition of a calorie, in Joules. 4.18 Joules PER calorie. Fine so far.

Quote

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.

Now we begin to run into difficulty. Start temperature "ambient" is 16 C. Water amount "a little under" 900 grams. Call it 900 for the sake of the calculations. It took 90 minutes to get to 82 degrees from 16? Or was the water heated up faster and then held at 82 degrees for some time until 90 minutes had elapsed? In an insulated container, I hope. Let's not quibble about whether you can have liquid water at 104 degrees in an unpressurized container, or worry about the fact that 104-82 is 22, not 20. So we've taken 900 grams of water from 16 degrees to 82 degrees in 90 minutes, then from 82 degrees to 104 degrees in a further 10 minutes. OK? Ok.

Quote

Joules = 1 watt per second.

This is completely backwards and wrong. One Joule = one Watt-second. One Watt = one Joule PER second. And here is one of the major conceptual errors that has nothing to do with "miscalculation" and which MUST be understood by Rosemary if she ever hopes to get power and energy calculations right.

Quote

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.

Now the fun begins. So. Do the math. You've raised 900 grams of water by 66 degrees C. That takes 900 x 66 = 59400 calories, or 4.18 x 59400 = 248292 Joules. THERE IS NO "PER SECOND" to be put in here; the time element does not enter in at this point. It took about 250000 Joules to heat the water in the first stage.

Quote

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.

Same mistake again, plus another one. You now have taken 900 grams of water at 82 degrees and raised it by 22 degrees to boil at "104" degrees, for a further input of 22 x 900 = 19800 calories or 19800 x 4.18 = 82764 Joules. Again, the time does not enter into the calculation. And by using "88" instead of 22 in your calculation you are adding in the previous quantity.... so when you do your final addition below you are using the same quantity TWICE.

Quote

Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Adding the CORRECT two values, you should have gotten 331056 Joules, which is the energy required to raise 900 grams of water from 16 degrees C to 104 degrees C (without boiling).
900 x 88 x 4.18 = 331056.... a third of a million Joules, compared to your figure of 25.6 MILLION.

Quote

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.

As we now can clearly see.... the claim is WRONG, by a factor of about 75. In other words, not only did the battery not outperform its "watt hour rating"... but the battery could have performed THIRTY or more identical tests before it showed any discharge by your no-load voltage measurements.

A mere "miscalculation" or a profound misunderstanding of mathematics and power measurements? Let the readers be the judges.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #905 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:47:04 AM »

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on March 12, 2012, 08:20:16 AM

Come on, she obviously meant that a watt is a joule per second. With all you guys bashing her all the time, it is an understandable mistake, as it is stressful to try to defend one's work against people who just want to bash it.

Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it? Just let her experiment in peace. I get it, you do not like her invention. I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure. But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.

It should be clear to you by now that it was not an "understandable mistake", it is actually her sincere belief that a Joule = one Watt per second... since that's how she calculates. She continually makes these "mistakes" and bases her claims on them.

And as for the invention and schematics being "out there"..... have you done your homework? Do you know the history of fuzzytomcat, .99, and me, with regards to Rosemary's "invention" and "schematics"? I suggest you do a little research on our history with this topic. You can start by looking at my YouTube channel and searching for the obvious terms.

And please.... build her circuits and test them for yourself. How's that for an attempt at suppression? BUILD AND TEST THEM YOURSELF.

You answered my power and energy problem correctly.... that's a good start.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #906 on:** March 12, 2012, 09:55:04 AM »

Guys here's a little detective story for you all.

Chapter 1.
I repeatedly assure everyone in post after post - that I'm more than willing to engage in a battery draw down test. But not unless there's explicit acknowledgement that those results will then constitute PROOF. The only way to get this is to engage the active jurisdiction of some experts. And by expert - Glen - I mean - by EXPERTS.

That challenge is duly rewarded by Glen Lettenmaier and others flaming my thread to death. That thread is then locked and I'm banned. Worst still - Harti threatens to DELETE my hard work. I protest. He agrees to leave the thread in tact. But I'm still banned.

Chapter 2.
THEN. I'm re-instated. I'm allowed to start a new thread related to new work. But circumstances over take us all. Rossi has developed his E-cat. I'm obliged to concede that this is more 'to the point' than our own technology - as his is immediately applicable at heavy duty wattage. I do the decent thing - admit to this cold fusion priority - and let my own thread lapse.

Then I see a familiar pattern in the 'sledging' or 'trolling' of yet more claimants - on Poynty's forum. I am now more than an little angered - as they're using the same ploys that they used against me. Ramset is running around trying to rally TK of all people to adjudicate in a poor Serbian Professor's claim to having achieved over unity. I realise that I have a MISSION. I need to alert all the readers here to the AGENDAs that follow every unequivocal claim to over unity. I decide the best way to do this is to challenge Poynty and Professor AND INDEED HARTI - to their prizes for proof of over unity.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #907 on:** March 12, 2012, 09:55:59 AM »

Chapter 3
With this purpose in mind I re-open my thread. In the fullness of time Magsy proposes a battery draw down test. I reference the fact that I'm more than happy to engage in this. Ponty states - wtf? I'm paraphrasing here. He asks - Why didn't you propose this before? I said I DID. I told you that - in post after post. I'm on record. More than willing to engage in a battery draw down test. But not unless there's explicit acknowledgement that those results will then constitute PROOF. The only way to get this is to engage the active jurisdiction of some experts. And - again. By expert - Glen - I mean - by EXPERTS.

Poynty still alleges that that I've never ever, ever proposed this before. I dip into my posts and find the first reference. There it is. Unequivocal proof that I HAVE. BUT. That post, - unfortunately - references a math error that has been addressed in that previously LOCKED THREAD. The fact is that there's also this proof of accepting a battery draw down challenge. Which belies Poynty's claim that I've NEVER BEFORE PROPOSED THIS. It's ignored. LOL. The only thing that everyone shouts about is that I've made a math error. TK leads the attack. I immediately answer him. I point out in an immediate follow up post that it was INDEED an error. Freely acknowledged. THEN AGAIN. My thread is locked. I'm left floundering. And I can do nothing to assert my challenge for Poynty's prizes.

Chapter 4.
THEN. Time passes. Posts are posted. Pages are turned. But in the background strange things are afoot. Harti allows me my voice again. I can post on my own thread.

Meanwhile that all important admission of error - that thing that is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than any proof that I've been trying to engage in a battery draw down test since forever. That apparent lack of an admission of error becomes the FULL FOCUS FOR TK. And TK's NOTHING if not an opportunist. He CHARGES IN. Post after post after post challenging me to EXPLAIN AN ERROR THAT CONSTITUTED MENDACITY FRAUD - INABILITY TO ADMIT TO ERROR - FINAL PROOF THAT WE HAVE NO CLAIM. NAME IT. It was all there.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #908 on:** March 12, 2012, 09:56:34 AM »

Chapter 5
I - being somewhat more trusting than is actually appropriate - assume that TK is - like all of you are - aware of my early admission of error. Then TK - who is well aware of the fact that the admission - goes on a veritable rampage of DEMAND. Admit you're wrong Rosemary. And with it admit that your claims are fallacious. And with it admit that you really need to WITHDRAW ANY CLAIM TO HAVING ACHIEVED OVER UNITY. He goes further. he then advises HARTI in an OPEN LETTER - that HARTI MUST NOW DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

And all this time I assume that he's doing this in the face of the evidence. My open admission was freely available for all to read. Posted twice. BUT. If I didn't know that TK was the soul of discretion and that Harti was actively advancing OU - I would be inclined to suspect that they were both going to use this as another rather thin excuse to get me banned. But for the record. My admission of error was made BEFORE the thread was locked that last time. Happily there still remains, nonetheless, evidence of this prior admission.

Which all goes to show how tenuous is tenure on these forums. And how easy it is for our trolls to exploit every opportunity to discredit me or the technology - with or without due cause. When they can do that much background editing then I concerned for the integrity of open source. With respect.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #909 on:** March 12, 2012, 11:25:52 AM »

Now TK - can impose on you. Explain all these pages of noisy alarm. Here's your statement.

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 12, 2012, 07:45:36 AM

An open letter to Stefan Hartmann:

Stefan: I have repeatedly shown how Rosemary Ainslie's claim is based on incorrect math and incorrect understanding of power and energy units and their relationships. I have cited her own words and shown specifically where and how her calculations have been done incorrectly. The correct calculations, based on her own data, show that the claim that she makes is FALSE. I have asked her to either justify her calculations and show that she is correct and I am wrong, or to correct her calculations and RETRACT her claim of overunity performance and her application for the various prizes that you and Prof. Jones are offering.

The fact that she refuses to do either of these things, yet allows the claim to stand uncorrected in spite of the manifest fatal errors, shows that she is engaging in wilful scientific misconduct. The fact that you are allowing this claim to stand, unchallenged and uncorrected, indicates a certain lack of rigor on your own part. I believe that you have sufficient understanding of mathematics and energy/power calculations to see for yourself, by reading carefully and performing your own calculations, that her claim is unsupported by her data. I sincerely hope that you consider the effect on the FE community that results from allowing FALSE CLAIMS to stand without correction.
Regards--
TinselKoala

When I have answered you HERE.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 29, 2012, 09:54:33 AM

Dear TK,

There comes a time in the life of a forum where the 'trolls' are identified by their insistence on repeating the same complaint over and over and over. Your own contributions as a dedicated 'disclaimer' of all things clean and green - are well known. Also apparent is your insistence on repeating the same complaint - time out of mind - with the clear intention of 'flaming' this thread to DEATH. Let me remind you. Here's the ANSWER - WRITTEN IN FULL and explained in AS MUCH DETAIL AS IT DESERVES. I'll propose some other subjects that may be of interest to our readers and to you - hereafter.

Meanwhile, I trust that it's understood that your entire objective here is to DISCREDIT our technology, and any claims associated with this technology based on something that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO OUR PAPER WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE CLAIM associated with this. While I understand how you RELY on this - may I also IMPOSE on you to read my answer. That way - when you do decide to 'flame' this thread - you'll at least use some appropriate excuses to do so.

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

and here

Quote from: author=Rosie Pose link=topic=11675

Lol. I've woken up to all this? And everyone objecting to my math? Surely not? I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess. And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write. Anyway. There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'. But I wrote all that many months ago. And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

All that fuss? Are you really needing to scrape so far down that barrel? I'd post the whole of that answer but it's only appropriate to Poynty Point. I'll save the full answer for my blogspot - lest the post be deleted. LOL
Kindest regards TK
Rosie

poynt99 · « **Reply #910 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:27:28 PM »

You may have missed this?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315130/#msg315130

I would appreciate a link.

poynt99 · « **Reply #911 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:35:26 PM »

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on March 12, 2012, 08:20:16 AM

Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it? Just let her experiment in peace. I get it, you do not like her invention. I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure. But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.

eatenbyagrue,

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? What is wrong with you? THINK man!

It is all out there indeed. Then where is YOUR working demo?

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #912 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:59:55 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 02:35:26 PM

eatenbyagrue,

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? What is wrong with you? THINK man!

It is all out there indeed. Then where is YOUR working demo?

Poynty Point,

Are you now trying to tell eatenbyagrue that our own experimental evidence is pure fabrication? I'm reasonably certain that no-one on this forum has tried to replicate our circuit. If they did then you'd be around to scoff them or to advise them to follow your own circuit variants.

Eatenbyagrue - I assure you that the circuit is very easy to replicate - and you don't need to parallel those transistors at Q2. 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2 is more than enough. Nor do you need so many batteries. It's easily doable with just 1 x 12 volts. Possibly it can be done on less than 12 volts - as Groundloop showed us. There's one downside though. One needs a zut scope to get optimised settings. But even that is doable with some patient downloads of the voltage data for spreadsheet analysis. And simpler yet is to simply try this out on a sim program. We've had loads of samples of this. They all manage that waveform. And a sim does not use an oscilloscope - so no-one can say this is the result of energy or distortions from the scope.

I personally can't help as I have never done a sim. And we're not doing any more replications until our paper is published. Or unless Poynty finds us some academics to establish the protocols. I won't use his advices though as I've got a shrewd idea he's less than impartial. LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosie

SchubertReijiMaigo · « **Reply #913 on:** March 12, 2012, 03:12:11 PM »

@ TK: Maths rocks, I was not very highly skilled for those kind of energy calculation, just knowing that Joules and Watts it's not same things, but I have learned a lot of things (and well understood Rosemary "Mistake" in her maths) with your post Thanks !!! When you look rationally, you have definitively right. I will go to bed less idiot this night. LOL

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #914 on:** March 12, 2012, 03:13:26 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on March 12, 2012, 02:27:28 PM

You may have missed this?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315130/#msg315130

I would appreciate a link.

Really Poynty Point? You'd appreciate a link? For my part I'd appreciate knowing who it is that you're trying to address here? Which of us readers are you proposing must rally to earn your appreciation. And while you're at it - I would appreciate an answer too. It's related to that battery draw down test. Are you, in principle, prepared to let us 'reserve our rights' to this claim for your prize? At least until our paper is published? Otherwise I suggest we make a plan.

LOL
Rosie Pose

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 939489 times)

fuzzytomcat

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

eatenbyagrue

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

poynt99

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

poynt99

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

SchubertReijiMaigo

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.