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.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 857260 times)

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1125 on: March 18, 2012, 02:57:27 AM »
Rosemary, I'll try to clarify my concerns:

Quote
3) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source. This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output.
With 36VDC into an 11 Ohm element, the element dissipation is about 118W. Therefore, could you please clarify your quote?

Quote
4) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
I think I may understand this now. But if you want 50 Watts dissipation in a load using a fixed 36 Volt supply, why not simply use R = V2/P? Computed as such, you would require a 25.92 Ohm load resistance connected to the 36V battery supply for the control.

Quote
5) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
How are you going to adjust your apparatus to match the dissipated 50 Watts in the control load resistance? Are you going to use the same load resistor type, model and value as used for the control? It's important to use the same load resistor type, model, and value for the control and apparatus, otherwise it is not a fair and rigorous comparison between the two.

Quote
6) We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously.
Of course. And what will the course of action be if the temperature between the two drifts apart for some reason?

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1126 on: March 18, 2012, 03:09:36 AM »
These are Rosemary Ainslie's exact words, which she has not corrected or retracted:

Quote
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.

Is this or is this not a TRUE and CORRECT STATEMENT?

What am I "alleging" here? Just what is being "alleged" by whom?

I just want Rosemary to either CONFIRM that she stands behind her statement, or CORRECT AND RETRACT IT.

How about this, Rosemary. YOU get someone you trust and respect, who has the requisite knowledge, to explain to you what's wrong with your statement and claim. It's really clear, from your avoidance of the issue, that you don't even understand what is wrong with your claim.

25.6 million Joules in 100 minutes is an average power of over 4 KILOWATTS.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1127 on: March 18, 2012, 03:20:32 AM »
@ .99

Rosemary said, "This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output."

Which once again shows that she doesn't understand the basics of energy, power, time, and Ohm's law.

Heat a resistor to 50 Watts? Using a rate of current flow?  WHAT

Do you see what I meant when I said that you need to make sure Rosemary understands the basics before you start talking about testing anything? Now temperature is measured in Watts and power is measured in Amps per second.

And however are you going to be able to compare your present tests, at 50 or 120 Watts, with Rosemary's test that is the basis of her claim... where she achieved an average of about 4100 Watts into her 900 grams of water in 100 minutes?
25.6 million Joules.... don't stand too close!!

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1128 on: March 18, 2012, 03:24:08 AM »
I've asked Rosemary for clarification on her quote. Hopefully I've made clear my concern, as you have yours.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1129 on: March 18, 2012, 03:42:08 AM »
Note that, using her own exact  _data_  as cited, the performance of the circuit is unremarkable when the energy calculation is done correctly.

This is why I have such a hard time with this thread. Rosemary is claiming a monetary prize or maybe two, based on data which she has analyzed incorrectly in such a blatant manner that it is clear to everyone who actually considers the quote I keep quoting. She continues, as in your present discussion, to misuse basic terms of energy, power, and circuit performance. Her claim of "infinite COP" is based on the battery recharging, the battery recharging is based on the conclusion that the tests performed used much more energy than the battery could have supplied, and that conclusion is based on three separate math errors in her analysis. Even using her own exact experimental data, the conclusion is seen to be false when the calculation is correctly done, and in fact the batteries could likely have performed 30 such tests without going below 12 volts each.

What is wrong with this picture?

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1130 on: March 18, 2012, 04:03:50 AM »
Rosemary also uses the negative battery power "measurement" as justification to claim COP infinity, not just the erroneous battery capacity and energy calculations in the quote you're posting.

I wouldn't hold your breath TK waiting for an admission of error on those calculations etc.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1131 on: March 18, 2012, 04:47:24 AM »
Of course she won't defend her position re the calculation, since it's indefensible. And of course she can't correct and retract her claim of 25.6 million Joules, because then... poof! Just like a blown mosfet, her overunity disappears in a puff of... 104 degree water.

You and I both know that the correct way to test this device is to determine the power _drawn from the batteries_, not delivered to the load,  by the device in the normal manner using electrical tests, and then test the _same load_ using straight DC power at the same level,  preferably from a good, filtered, adjustable DC supply, not a battery. The time-temperature profiles can be determined to see if the device heats the load any more efficiently than a DC source.
Then, take the batteries "recharged" by the device after a suitable run time heating up the load and the mosfets, and some normally charged batteries, and put them side-by-side with the same kind of load, like a 25 watt light bulb... and see which light bulb goes dark first. That will tell you if the batteries have charged up or not.

So you start with a batch of six batteries. You charge them all with a standard "smart" battery charger until the unit says they are fully charged. You write down the no-load voltage of each battery after a suitable settling time. Or you don't, it doesn't matter.
Then you RANDOMLY select three of these batteries and set them aside unused. You take the other three batteries and run the Ainslie circuit with them for a while, heating up the load and the water and of course the mosfets. Then you take the Ainslie batteries and the set-aside batteries, hook them up to light bulbs, and watch. You don't even need to do any measurements... just watch to see which bulb goes out first.

Repeat several times, conventionally charging first then randomly assigning the batteries each time.

Does this sound like a test designed by a free energy debunker, designed specifically to fail Rosemary's device?

May  I recommend HandyAVI ? It is a neat application to take time-lapse videos, motion-detection, slow-motion, frame time logging, and other neat things with a webcam. You can download a free evaluation version to try it out, but the program isn't free... it's quite reasonably priced though and the developer responds to emails about problems and questions.

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1132 on: March 18, 2012, 04:58:28 AM »
TK,

Yes agreed, that would be one of the easiest, most accurate ways to settle this. The trouble is, Rosemary is obtaining a negative battery power "measurement".

In theory, based on one of her claims that the batteries recharge, and never discharge any measurable amount, we could forego the control all together, and simply run the apparatus until either the device runs considerably beyond the rated capacity of the batteries, or the batteries die. But that brings us back to the contentious calculations error issue again.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1133 on: March 18, 2012, 05:03:56 AM »
So use my suggestion... no calculations or even measurements are required to test the "infinite COP battery recharging" claim.  Just start with six full batteries, run three on the Ainslie circuit for a couple of hours-- or to be fair, since the draw really isn't very high, for a couple of days, then compare it to the unused batteries with the light bulb test. Monitor the light bulbs with HandiAVI taking one frame every ten seconds or every minute until one of the bulbs is too dim to see.

Want to bet which bulb it will be?

(And how can a calculation error be contentious? Is there ANYBODY anywhere outside of Rosemary's fantasy world that will endorse the calculations as quoted, and provide justification for their endorsement? Do you remember my One Thousand Dollar challenge to Mylow? I offered him a grand, cash, on video, in public, if he would get two University engineering professors -- real ones that I could check --  in his area and of his own choosing to view and endorse his motor in public. I am on the edge of making the same offer in this case, just about that calculation and claim of 25.6 million Joules.... is there anybody who will come out in public and say that her numbers are right?)

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1134 on: March 18, 2012, 12:58:49 PM »
TK,

I don't think anyone has the courage to state publicly that the calculations in that quote are correct.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1135 on: March 18, 2012, 01:28:25 PM »
Of course not...  because they aren't. But not only are they not correct ( in the sense of simple math errors or typos ) they betray that continuing fundamental conceptual error about energy, power, time, and electrical parameters that Rosemary clings to in her wilful ignorance.
Lack of education is one thing... decisions made long ago, neither here nor there. But in the present moment, discussing these topics, for her to remain ignorant and to persist in these errors is inexcusable and can only be deliberate on her part. Wilful ignorance. This is why I suggested that she herself find someone with the knowledge, that she can trust, to explain the matters to her in person. Of course, since she knows it all already -- or that is her basic attitude, in spite of her periodic false humility -- she won't bother to do this.

I had to go back thirty pages to find the best page in the thread. Has there been any progress at all since then? I don't really think so. Except of course that Rosemary is now likely doing her "back-channel" communications by PMs to various individuals.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/660/

I must admit that I am surprised that she hasn't gone back and edited the post # 666 for its revealing content. That's why I've preserved it in multiple quotes in my own posts here -- posts that she cannot edit to change their meaning, as she has done so often in the past.

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1136 on: March 18, 2012, 05:33:40 PM »
LOL  Guys,

Lets go back to this statement.
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.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

And then to this latest
Of course not...  because they aren't. But not only are they not correct ( in the sense of simple math errors or typos ) they betray that continuing fundamental conceptual error about energy, power, time, and electrical parameters that Rosemary clings to in her wilful ignorance.
Lack of education is one thing... decisions made long ago, neither here nor there. But in the present moment, discussing these topics, for her to remain ignorant  and to persist in these errors is inexcusable and can only be deliberate on her part. Wilful ignorance. This is why I suggested that she herself find someone with the knowledge, that she can trust, to explain the matters to her in person. Of course, since she knows it all already -- or that is her basic attitude, in spite of her periodic false humility -- she won't bother to do this.

I had to go back thirty pages to find the best page in the thread. Has there been any progress at all since then? I don't really think so. Except of course that Rosemary is now likely doing her "back-channel" communications by PMs to various individuals.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/660/

I must admit that I am surprised that she hasn't gone back and edited the post # 666 for its revealing content. That's why I've preserved it in multiple quotes in my own posts here -- posts that she cannot edit to change their meaning, as she has done so often in the past.

LOL.  I've taken out all that 'glow'.  Something's very wrong in this software of Harti's. In any event.  OF COURSE I'm not going to edit anything.  There's nothing substantial that's wrong with that much referenced post of mine.  It's only a tad out.  I've allowed this posturing as I was well aware that it would likely be well referenced by TK.  And I was anxious to see those 'multiple quotes' LOL that he referenced with such reckless abandon.  There are even more amusing ones.  Ones where he tries to teach myself and all and sundry how to calculate JOULES.  And then both TK and Schubert post that TK 'ROCKS'.      No so much 'rocking' as 'rocky'.      Not sure if Schubert was being sarcastic.  And I'm not sure that Poynty saw TK's multiple 'errors' in his 'multiple quotes'.  Either way.  Here's the thing.

I stand by that earlier analysis but am, indeed, a tad out.  Our batteries are possibly 60 ampere hours.  Which means that I understated their potential output by about 2 million Watts or thereby.  Otherwise all's in the right ballpark.  And I think I've now left this unanswered for about as long as is required.  Guys, everyone.  There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the analysis above.  I've even taken the trouble to get this checked out with experts.  I'll explain it in the unlikely event that TK again tries to imply all that he tries to imply.  What a joke.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

It's actually been hilarious - and shows up TK for being an ace propagandist or a really poor scientist.  Not sure which.

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1137 on: March 18, 2012, 06:01:13 PM »
And Mags, - here where you quoted me - highlighted in red.
hey rose

"Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing."

Oh. Id like to read up on that.

Mags
I gave you a link.  Here it is again.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Kindly note that NOT ONLY does the paper detail a TEST but it is a declared 'REPLICATION' of our own COP>17 test.  He didn't get to COP>17 But he never got his mind around the exploitable 'math function' on his  loaned Tektronix - that would have enabled this.  But he did his best.  And COP>4 which is claimed in that paper courtesy the incorrect analysis of Harvey Gramm - or COP>7 which is closer to the fact - is still COP>1 - which is basically all that we're trying to bring to eveyone's attention.  And right now we've got a circuit that's giving us COP Infinity.  And it seems to be born out by the fact that the amount of energy dissipated is way in excess of the potential energy available from those 5 batteries we used for this water to boil test.

I hope that's clear.  As well as the fact that there are now claimants from South Africa who have got technology that apparently falls in line with Mylows earlier claims.  Those claims that apparently TK debunked - through the simple expediency of referencing a wire that may or may not have been in the original test.  Who knows?  Hopefully they'll have the good sense to keep their claims off forum lest TK get involved again.  God knows he does damage.  It's his mission in life.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1138 on: March 18, 2012, 06:14:33 PM »
So Guys,

Here's what TK is hoping you'll believe.  Provided we get water to boil - then it matters not how long we keep it boiling you never again reference the amount of joules other than the amount required to reach boiling point in the first instance.  So.  If you want to calculate how much energy it takes to keep a pot boiling for 6 hours or so - to cook some ox tail say - then don't worry.  The actual amount of energy in joules - is only applicable to taking that water to boil.  Would that our electrical suppliers saw sense in this.  Our utility bills would not then be quite so onerous.

Unfortunately our utility suppliers are also not that idiotic.
Kindest as ever,

Rosemary

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1139 on: March 18, 2012, 06:29:07 PM »
So Guys,

Here's what TK is hoping you'll believe.  Provided we get water to boil - then it matters not how long we keep it boiling you never again reference the amount of joules other than the amount required to reach boiling point in the first instance.  So.  If you want to calculate how much energy it takes to keep a pot boiling for 6 hours or so - to cook some ox tail say - then don't worry.  The actual amount of energy in joules - is only applicable to taking that water to boil.  Would that our electrical suppliers saw sense in this.  Our utility bills would not then be quite so onerous.

Unfortunately our utility suppliers are also not that idiotic.
Kindest as ever,

Rosemary

Nope, that's not true at all.
And it is in fact typical of Rosemary's argumentation. She is claiming something that "I'm hoping for you to believe" when that simply isn't true at all. In other words.... it's another lie from Rosemary.
You should be grateful that the electric utilities DON"T calculate your energy usage the way Rosemary does... you'd be in for a big "shock" when you got your next bill.

I am referring, continually and ONLY for the purpose of the present argument, to the post you made. It's right there in your own quote of my quote.
Quote
"There's nothing substantial that's wrong with that much referenced post of mine.  It's only a tad out."

Rosemary.... as I have shown several times, it's out by a factor of about 75. That is, your claimed energy of 25.6 MILLION Joules is SEVENTYFIVE TIMES larger than the actual correct figures arrived at by correct calculations from your own basic input data: 900 grams of water raised from 16 degrees to 104 degrees (hah!) in 100 minutes. Your claim is equivalent to applying over  FOUR KILOWATTS, that is, over FIVE HORSEPOWER, continually, for 100 minutes, to your liter of water. That is absurd, no matter where the water-- or power-- came from. Your oxtail soup would be long boiled completely away.

And a JOULE is NOT a WATT PER SECOND.

Do you see? She DOES NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND where and what her errors are in the calculation.

Quote
Guys, everyone.  There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the analysis above.  I've even taken the trouble to get this checked out with experts.  I'll explain it in the unlikely event that TK again tries to imply all that he tries to imply.

OK... please please pretty please EXPLAIN IT. Checked with experts? You really really are a piece of work. Experts in what? Cosmetics?

Let's start here: How many Joules does it take to raise 900 grams of water from 16 degrees C to 104 degrees C?
Or, if that's too much for you, how many Joules does it take to raise ONE gram of water from 16 degrees to 17 degrees? (Hint: the answer is in your quote, and it's the only thing you got right).