Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 943003 times)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1260 on:** March 20, 2012, 05:01:35 AM »

Quote from: powercat on March 19, 2012, 01:01:31 PM

You need to read more to understand that this situation has been going on for years and there are other threads and other forums that you probably haven't even seen, tens of thousands of posts, all leading to one conclusion that this circuit does not work as claimed.

I know you are new here and there is a lot of information to take in so you probably missed this post.

But.. .but... Powercat... that sounds like you don't believe in Rosemary's claim.

I wonder why she says this then:

Quote

Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity was, in fact breached. And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this.

in post # 1249 in this thread.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1261 on:** March 20, 2012, 05:10:39 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on March 20, 2012, 03:59:05 AM

You might want to have a doctor check that out. Does that happen all the time? There just may be one of those new fangled medications that will fix ya right up there in a jiffy.
No, No. Excuse me. Now Shush Im working.

Mags

Too busy to answer the direct, polite question, I see. That's nice of you.

Now... I have already achieved overunity with that circuit.

Using Rosemary's oxtail soup example... See that light bulb filament glowing? That's a 25 Watt bulb, there, but it's not very bright, so let's just call it ten Watts. 36 volts from the battery, 0.27 amps carried by the mosfet, ten Watts. Right so far? Now it's been running like that for over four hours, nearly five now, but let's just call it four hours. So... by Rosemary's math example -- approved by her academics, remember -- of the oxtail soup.... that's 36 volts times 0.27 amps times 60 seconds times 60 minutes times 4 hours, or a staggering 139968 Watts or , since one Watt = one Joule (the terms are interchangeable according to Rosemary) nearly 140 thousand Joules . That's what I'd have to pay for on my electric bill if I'd used the line. According to Rosemary's Oxtail Soup example, of course.
Now my batteries contain only 36 x 5 x 60 x 60 = 64800 Joules when fully charged. (Oh... am I a tad out there? Never mind.)
"SO. DO THE MATH" (tm Rosemary Ainslie).
In that one test alone, I far exceeded the battery capacity. Therefore... I have achieved OVERUNITY, by the very same means that Rosemary Ainslie has.

Refute me if you dare.

In post # 1165 she computes thusly:

Quote

Let's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms. The source voltage is 220 volts. The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you. While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.

And earlier she explained,

Quote

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

And of course there are similar proofs of every step of my own calculation as being done the same way Rosemary does it. And I have been unable to measure any drawdown of the batteries... they are STILL well over 12 volts each. Over 12.7 volts each, in fact... therefore they are still fully charged.

Therefore, and by the same logic that she uses, I have achieved overunity performance already with my OWN circuit... which coincidentally happens to be the same as what Fuzzy posted and claimed was Rosemary's.

THANKS !! I'll be applying for the prizes now, please.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1262 on:** March 20, 2012, 06:57:22 AM »

Here's a repost for Poynty Point as this has again fallen off the page without an answer

Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1 We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2 We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts.
3 On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4 We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5 We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6 We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7 Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
This will represent the control setting.

9 We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10 To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
This will represent the experimental setting

11 We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12 We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply.
13 The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
This will represent the control test

14 We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
This will represent the experiment.

15 We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16 We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17 We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18 We will then rerun those tests
19 This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty? Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1263 on:** March 20, 2012, 06:58:36 AM »

And this on the conditions
CONDITIONS

Just for general discussion. Here's what's proposed

. That the protocols are approved by not less than 2 academics as unequivocal proof of claim
. That all data is measured continuously through appropriate data loggers
. That both tests are continuously streamed 'on line' for public verification of results
. That there is sufficient continuous supervision of these results to ensure that there is no 'tampering'.
. This in any event should be evident in the data logger and the filming of the experiments
. That the function generator is not grounded

Add to this if anything occurs to you Poynty.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1264 on:** March 20, 2012, 07:27:04 AM »

And guys - regarding Powercat's post. In its own way it's gold. He draws the distinction between what Glen Lettenmaier's test managed and our
own. Not an inconsiderable difference. Glen only managed COP>6 (reduced by Harvey Gramm to 4) and we managed COP>17 as detailed in our
Quantum paper. I think he's trying to imply that our own claim was bogus. Fortunately our own claim was actually and openly accredited by
SASOL (SA), ABB Research (NC - USA) BP (SA), Power Engineers (SA) (part of the Alstom Group), SPESCOM (SA) and many, many more smaller
firms. Those listed are also listed on our Stock Exchange. They gave us their permission - in writing - to append their names as accreditors.
And SASOL went further and offered Professor Gaunt at UCT - a bursary award - to take this study further. Unfortunately Professor Gaunt
'declined' that offer.

Which goes to show. That breach of unity - that MileHigh is rather anxious you all dismiss - out of hand - is also associated with multiple
accreditations from real experts. Interestingly, our latest claim has nothing at all to do with the battery performance. It simply concentrates on
the anomalous negative wattage that's measured from the battery. This implies much that relates to the thesis. And the focus of that paper is
this. We describe a series of tests that show different aspects of this anomaly. And then in the second paper we reconcile the results in terms of
the thesis. And the thesis proposes nothing that contradicts known physics. It only suggests that current flow has a dual charge potential
depending on the direction of flow and the charge presented in terms of that justification.

Hope that makes it clearer,
Kindest again
Rosemary

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1265 on:** March 20, 2012, 07:51:55 AM »

And regarding this post and with reference to TK's assumption that because he didn't manage a replication then it obviates Glen Lettenmaier's
tests. That argument is clearly somewhat flawed. It only shows us that TK did not have Glen's experimental aptitudes. And Glen, in turn, does
not have ours. I think I've highlighted the appropriate.

And there's nothing new here. TK is STILL not able to replicate our results. He seems to think that he can thereby negate our own. Far be it
from me to allege that he's an incompetent or an idiot. That's likely to be considered libelous. So. I'll refrain and allow you all to draw your own
conclusions.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2012, 02:08:43 AM

Guys

What a to do. I don't want to count the number of pages that have now rolled over - courtesy our trolls. I got a total of 31 notifications
of posting in my email - just yesterday. The count roughly 5 'for' - 26 'against'. Not sure if this is right but I think that works out at plus/minus
16% in favour .... and that number 'falling'. On the whole I think over unity is still the loser. And my poor efforts along with it. As MileHigh
points out - it's round about now that I write LOL. These stats are alarming. If I was to lay a bet on the possible survival of over unity evidence
- then I'd plumb for a certain 'fail'.

Delighted to see that TK is still taking his own circuit variants seriously. Else where would he find his justifications to
argue? And then poor Glen Lettenmaier is trying to communicate something. God alone knows what? Clarity is not his strong point. And
MileHigh - who's got a style of writing that I positively envy - is, unfortunately, now regressing into pure propaganda. Again, MilesUpInTheAir -
this is for you. LOL

And at the risk of boring you all with more repetition - there's been so, so much of it - here's the thing. Our early claim of COP>17 was
replicated - in full public view. A paper was written on this and roundly rejected by two publications within the IEEE group without going to
review. That replication was subsequently and very articulately denied on Energetic Forum - by both Glen and Harvey Gramm. Meanwhile
ownership of that paper was zapped by our Glen - who is nothing if not unscrupulous - and under oath he declared to Scribd authorities - that
this was exclusively his own work. I was not allowed to post the updated TIE version and was threatened with 'banishment' - God forbid - if I
persisted with this claim that I had any part of that paper. I'm like the mother in the Bible who preferred to let the baby be taken away from her
than allow it to be cut in half and thereby killed. Better something than nothing.

But confusion ABOUNDS - as it's said. Glen Lettenmaier claims he NEVER replicated anything at all. Harvey helped him out by insisting that it
can't be a replication. Glen only managed COP>4. Rosemary managed COP>17. Therefore, confusingly, the only conclusion to draw from this is
that Glen actually and independently orchestrated his own 'discovery'. And in and amongst all these quibbles and niceties - the fact that there
was ever a breach of unity at all - was conveniently forgotten. Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity
was, in fact breached. And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this. All along? And here again I've just seen how urgently MileHigh has denied this.
And so it goes.

Round and round the mulberry bush.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited a possesive pronoun. Ever my weakness.

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1266 on:** March 20, 2012, 08:34:25 AM »

And finally, hopefully the last post for the morning and for eatenbyagrue

I'm not sure how to tell you this - as I really do not want to antagonise you in any way - but here's the thing - now approved by a power
engineering expert. It is required to incorporate the entire test period to evaluate the joules dissipated on that circuit. So. Indeed. If it takes
4.18 joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade - then that's the rate of applied power over the entire test period. Roughly 66
degrees above ambient over 90 minutes for 60 seconds PER minute for each gram of those 900 grams. Comes to (I
think) a total of 21 443 400 joules. Just that. Even before we take it to boil. At which point we've exhausted the capacity of all five batteries.
The product over time is required. So guys. That's how our utility suppliers justify their bill when we presume to make oxtail soup. I'm not
about to get into an argument about this. For those of you who still doubt it then phone your local universities or your engineers that work for
your utility suppliers. Our poor TK is apparently anxious to restructure our standard measurement protocols.

Which also means that my previous analysis was 'on the button'. Again. Don't argue this here. PLEASE. It's dominated far too many pages.
Just check it out with your own academic sources. You'll find that academics are highly approachable. They'll explain all this. Which also means
that my previous claim is on the money - albeit that it's not part of our presentation in our paper. It simply proves that
our batteries have long outperformed their watt hour rating. In that test alone it's exceeded. And they're still at 12 volts each - precisely the
voltage measured when we first took delivery of them. And as for evolvingape's analysis. The less said the better. But do not, please, any of
you, lose sight of those multiple protests by TK that has dominated this thread in so many posts and over so many pages.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Subject to his permission I'll copy that email. But I'm not sure that he'll want his name associated with this thread. That'll be his choice.
I fondly anticipate another plus/minus six pages of protest as Glen Lettenmaier and TK continue with their howls of protest. But please scroll
past this. If required I'll just repost these morning posts here.

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #1267 on:** March 20, 2012, 08:59:05 AM »

Hi members and guests,

I was advised to add the following PROOF in support of my defense from the unfounded slanderous allegations from Rosemary of THEFT of her "THESIS" technology and discovery.

This does relate to the accusation of stealing her technology for a verification of her THESIS ( BS ) ...... but for me it was to try and verify the Quantum 2002 article ( quantum_october_2002.pdf ) COP>17 "CLAIM" . ( noted as self written by Rosemary Ainslie )

Please Find Attached - ( Request_for_return_due_to_misleading_intent.pdf )

100% verifiable full e-mail correspondence to and from Tektronix with a "END" demand from them for Rosemary to modify her misrepresentation of many facts in her postings at Energetic Forum HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, also including the immediate request for return of the loaned oscilloscope equipment I had in my possession and the total disconnect from any other equipment loans to the Open Source community to distance Tektronix from this verification of Rosemary Ainslie's claims.

PARTIAL QUOTE .........

Quote

Yesterday, I received a request from Rosemary to read the COP>17 blog. I wanted to let you know that I
requested she remove some content as it was misleading in regards to the intent of the instrument loan.
Following was my exact request:
- - - - - - -
I did finally read the latest postings. Now that I have read them, I ask that you remove the following references
from your posting:

"And that thesis was explicitly referenced in the early chapters of my association with Tektronix.
That was the basis of our use of the equipment. Always a specific condition of use. Never a loan. In
fact we were early advised never to use the term. it did not sit well with Tektronix. This condition
was my assurance to them that all the information would be collated and be made available to the
public to use in any way they chose - strictly in line with good open source tradition. That is also not
open to dispute.
May I ask you therefore, Glen, if there is any variation to this agreement that you have negotiated
with Tektronix? I am satisfied that it was Aaron's understanding that nothing was to be withheld from
the public. And I am certain that he would not do so. Are you, on the contrary, withholding access to
your data? Are you now uncovering information that you are withholding not only from the public but
from the authors in this collaboration? And do you consider that this is your right to do so? It hardly
seems to be in support of Open Source interests nor in the spirit in which you accessed that
equipment through Tektronix's good offices, in the first instance. And is Harvey and Ashtweth aware
of this? And both on record to secure open source interests?"

And...

"I suggest, with the utmost respect, that you are somehow negotiating an ownership and a sole right
to this experiment to the entire advantage of yourself and, possibly Harvey and Ashtweth. Again. I
would be glad to hear that this is entirely wrong. If I do not hear from you I will ask Tektronix to
clarify this."
These references make it appear that Tektronix was doing more than loaning a piece of
equipment. My purpose with the loan was to support a request I received from the marketing team
in Europe. The Europe team was hoping your team's application of the instrument in support of the
over-unity research would make a possible PR piece. But as you are aware, the research is really,
really too complicated for a simple PR piece. I ask again that you please remove these references.

- - - - -
I provide this to you to ensure you are aware of what
the exact terms of the loan was...as you can see there we no real strings attached. Again, I provide this just for
your understanding and not be used against Rosemary.
In my humble opinion, I think she is going through a phase of depression right now.
Hope everything settles out well. When that happens, let me know...it was amazing to watch a dispersed group
of individuals rallying together to achieve something with nothing more than sheer passion to drive them all.

MileHigh · « **Reply #1268 on:** March 20, 2012, 09:10:21 AM »

Quote

It is required to incorporate the entire test period to evaluate the joules dissipated on that circuit. So. Indeed. If it takes 4.18 joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade - then that's the rate of applied power over the entire test period. Roughly 66 degrees above ambient over 90 minutes for 60 seconds PER minute for each gram of those 900 grams. Comes to (I think) a total of 21 443 400 joules. Just that. Even before we take it to boil. At which point we've exhausted the capacity of all five batteries. The product over time is required. So guys. That's how our utility suppliers justify their bill when we presume to make oxtail soup. I'm not about to get into an argument about this. For those of you who still doubt it then phone your local universities or your engineers that work for your utility suppliers. Our poor TK is apparently anxious to restructure our standard measurement protocols.

It takes 4.18 Joules/gram x 900 grams = 3762 Joules to raise 900 grams of water by one degree Celsius.

Therefore if we want to raise 900 grams of water by 66 degrees we multiply 3762 x 66 = 248292 Joules.

This calculation is independent of the time dimension.

This is a prime example of the nonsensical idiocy associated with Rosemary's claim. If you want to take that as an indicator and make some inferences, then you can infer that the capacitor test will show that her circuit consumes power and will drain the batteries flat.

Rosemary still hasn't commented on the capacitor test because she is mortally afraid of doing it.

Like I have already stated, this foolishness has simply gone on too long and the days are numbered for Rosie's claim. It's just too much.

MileHigh

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1269 on:** March 20, 2012, 10:27:46 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on March 20, 2012, 09:10:21 AM

It takes 4.18 Joules/gram x 900 grams = 3762 Joules to raise 900 grams of water by one degree Celsius.

Therefore if we want to raise 900 grams of water by 66 degrees we multiply 3762 x 66 = 248292 Joules.

This calculation is independent of the time dimension.

This is a prime example of the nonsensical idiocy associated with Rosemary's claim. If you want to take that as an indicator and make some
inferences, then you can infer that the capacitor test will show that her circuit consumes power and will drain the batteries flat.

Indeed MileHigh your number is correct. But we ran this part of the test for a period of slightly more than 90 minutes of that entire test period.
Are you proposing that no further energy was put into that water? Did the applied energy somehow stop at 66 degrees above ambient? At
roughly 5 minutes after the start of that test period? Golly. Are you proposing that we can take the oxtail soup to boil and then simply switch off
the stove for the duration that we're cooking it? That would be nice. We'd pay far less to our utility suppliers. It did not take 90 minutes to get
900 grams of water to 66 degrees above ambient. It took no time at all. The resistor was already at 260 degrees or thereby - and climbing -
before it was immersed in that water.

Here's what I know. I can turn down the heat - reduce the current - to sustain the 'boil' in that oxtail soup. But I would also need to put a lid on
that pot - or it will stop boiling at a reduced current flow. We did not apply that 'lid'. Nor did we turn down our current flow. It was not altered
at all. It steamed for the duration - bar only for those early few moments while the heat from the element dispersed into the water. When it was
taken to 'boil' it took a further 10 minutes - and then only was the current turned off - the pot disconnected.

And this test was conducted and reported on - here on this forum - in real time.

And you have NOT yet answered the questions related to Glen Lettenmaier's REPLICATION. Are you also proposing that that was an IDLE CLAIM?
Is this what you're warning everyone to desist from 'believing'? That no-one to date - has ever managed to exceed unity? If so, then tell Glen
to remove his paper from Scribd. Because that's what that paper is stating. And that way I can post the corrected paper on my own Scribd file.

Regards,
Rosie Pose

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #1270 on:** March 20, 2012, 11:17:53 AM »

Hi members and guests,

It appears Rosemary is fishing again and making slanderous unfounded claims against me , this has be hashed over four (4) times in different threads in
different forums, it's getting old just like the FRAUDULENT claim on a COP greater than INFINITY ........ or ....... COP>INFINITY .

For your references and for the libel claim -
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93746

I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" channel on
the January 9, 2010 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that
many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the
recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the
Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 which was used in the IEEE submittal
Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and
in Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members
and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid
or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has
a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately
for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054
these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting
or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to
record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need
to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to
verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the
preferred mode of operation.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #1271 on:** March 20, 2012, 11:27:47 AM »

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315956/#msg315956 Reply #1224 on: March 19, 2012, 12:40:13 AM

Rosemary ..... your saying your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publications that the content are 100% TRUE and Factual.

YES or NO !!!

This is being recorded as your statement of fact, any thing other than a yes or no 24 Hrs from this posting if not answered, will be a "NO" and recorded as such !!

We established "CUT OFF" dates for your NERD RAT published device schematics based on established 12 MARCH 2011 "VIDEO" evidence .....

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315729/#msg315729 Reply #1117 on: March 17, 2012, 12:45:43 AM

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

YOUR 24 HOURS ARE UP ............. THERE WILL BE A FINAL STATEMENT ON THIS SUBJECT TO COME !!

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1272 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:07:06 PM »

Guys I must apologise for Glen Lettenmaier

He is that anxious that you never read his posts that he ensures they all 'fall off the page'. It's an irritating technique because it also obliges
the rest of us to carefully edit the line length of each post - to get it back into perspective. He is entirely unable to post an original opinion -
relying as he does on other's writing to fill up as much space as possible. I am afraid he is rather committed to stealing this entire technology
with whatever methods he can manage. And they're limited to this 'cut and paste' process that renders this thread unreadable.

Nor has he any idea of how to apply any kind of professional restraint. Nor does he know how to argue. He can only shout - in multi colour.
For some reason he's inordinately proud of this ability. I am not entirely sure of his emotional age. But from the appearances I would not be
inclined to peg this too high.

Meanwhile - I have learned a bitter lesson. Which is that it is better not to trust the presentations of members of these forums. Would that I
had realised this sooner. It is a matter of abiding shame that I ever associated mine and a co-author's good name with his.

Regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1273 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:15:44 PM »

AGAIN
Here's a repost for Poynty Point as this has again fallen off the page without an answer

Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1 We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2 We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts.
3 On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4 We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5 We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6 We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7 Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
This will represent the control setting.

9 We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10 To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
This will represent the experimental setting

11 We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12 We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply.
13 The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
This will represent the control test

14 We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
This will represent the experiment.

15 We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16 We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17 We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18 We will then rerun those tests
19 This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty? Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1274 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:24:07 PM »

And this on the conditions
CONDITIONS

Just for general discussion. Here's what's proposed

. That the protocols are approved by not less than 2 academics as unequivocal proof of claim
. That all data is measured continuously through appropriate data loggers
. That both tests are continuously streamed 'on line' for public verification of results
. That there is sufficient continuous supervision of these results to ensure that there is no 'tampering'.
. This in any event should be evident in the data logger and the filming of the experiments
. That the function generator is not grounded

Add to this if anything occurs to you Poynty.

Kindest regards
Rosie

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 943003 times)

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.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

fuzzytomcat

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

MileHigh

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

fuzzytomcat

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

fuzzytomcat

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.