Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 941768 times)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1365 on:** March 22, 2012, 04:30:13 AM »

Yes, you are clearly right, and I just hope _somebody_ starts testing _something_ soon.

Somebody other than me, I mean.

By the way, after running my system from 1605 until the mosfet failure at 2010, the load temperature was up to over 96.5 degrees (I saw 98.7 at one point but didn't actually record it). After shutdown I measured the battery voltage with the high-precision Simpson digital multimeter. It was 37.8 volts. The battery voltage was 37.8 volts when I started the test at 1605. Therefore, since the batteries are still "fully charged", I claim COP = INFINITY too, since even now.... hours after shutdown.... my oxtail soup is still hot.

In fact... since my batteries have less than 1/8 the capacity of Rosemary's to start.... I claim COP = 8 x INFINITY.

(Ever watch a rodeo clown at work? It's a very interesting occupation.)

evolvingape · « **Reply #1366 on:** March 22, 2012, 04:38:26 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 04:30:13 AM

In fact... since my batteries have less than 1/8 the capacity of Rosemary's to start.... I claim COP = 8 x INFINITY.

(Ever watch a rodeo clown at work? It's a very interesting occupation.)

Impressive claim, sounds like your in competition with the Energizer Bunny!

RM

poynt99 · « **Reply #1367 on:** March 22, 2012, 04:52:08 AM »

evolvingape,

Clearly you were making an assumption, and it would appear to be incorrect.

Perhaps the first question you SHOULD have asked BEFORE you assumed, was "What is the claim for this drawdown test?", like I did, here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

And Rosemary seems to hint at an answer here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315692/#msg315692

Therefore, you should conclude that this test is not to prove her circuit yields COP infinity, and that we are aiming to test as I have outlined, pending agreement from Rosemary.

poynt99 · « **Reply #1368 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:03:26 AM »

TK,

That was probably a combination of too much offset, and thermal runaway. Interestingly, Rosemary has mentioned a similar occurance.

(Yes, MOSFETs too can exhibit thermal runaway).

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1369 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:14:43 AM »

Quote from: poynt99 on March 22, 2012, 05:03:26 AM

TK,

That was probably a combination of too much offset, and thermal runaway. Interestingly, Rosemary has mentioned a similar occurance.

(Yes, MOSFETs too can exhibit thermal runaway).

Thermal runaway as it's associated with MOSFETs is accounted for by an increase in current flow. We have had absolutely NO change in our waveform over the MOSFETs which waveforms indicate that there is NO INCREASE IN CURRENT FLOW. Nor have OUR transistors been unduly stressed. The difference between our claim and that of TK's is that we have the waveform downloads to prove this.

Poynty Point - do NOT try and negate the evidence by diminishing it's significance. That's TK's technique. And you see for yourself that it doesn't work.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1370 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:34:41 AM »

Hi guys,

It seems that this thread of mine has now been appropriated by TK in a 'debunk' replication exercise that falls well short of a 'debunk' or a replication. Rather inappropriately he is also now desperately appealing to all and sundry to duplicate HIS replication.

Which will certainly take this thread to new and unintended departures. The only good news is that Glen Lettenmaier has stopped dominating this thread with a discussion on it's history. For that matter nor does Powercat. Perhaps we're still moving in the right direction - albeit somewhat circuitously. Sadly TK also knows the value of 'filling the page'. And he's doing this to good effect by posting photos rather than video links. I think he realises by now that no-one bothers to dip in there to look.

Frankly I'm much heartened by all this. I can sit back and let these rather unprincipled people display their motivations with that heavy handed overstatement - where the sheer excess undercuts their credibility. And NOTA BENE - they need not be legally accountable. That rather gives them the license to misrepresent to their heart's content. And indeed they do.

Moving on. I have finally seen that our home page carries a very significant proof of YET MORE technology that promises ever greater freedom from our utility suppliers. Thank you Harti for posting that. For the first time since he introduced this front page topical video - there is something that I look at time after time. I have been saying this since the beginning. The proof of over unity is going to MUSHROOM. First cold fusion - and now this? It is truly wonderful times that we're living in. I am well aware of the need to discredit our technology. We're not so much into the evidence as into the explanation. And that's the focus that TK's trying to manage.

Just be cautioned. And for those of you who still care about all this - PLEASE. Just apply that scroll function. I'm reasonably satisfied that there are yet those kindly academics who'll evaluate our protocols. Hopefully the sooner the better. But it may be that they won't engage unless forum guidelines are applied.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1371 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:45:11 AM »

And guys, here's a nice little 'truth'.

'Necessity is the mother of invention'. Thankfully our escalating energy costs have also generated this 'necessity'. How nice is that?

Again, and kindest
Rosemary

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1372 on:** March 22, 2012, 06:10:57 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 05:34:41 AM

Hi guys,

It seems that this thread of mine has now been appropriated by TK in a 'debunk' replication exercise that falls well short of a 'debunk' or a replication. Rather inappropriately he is also now desperately appealing to all and sundry to duplicate HIS replication.

STILL MORE LIES !! I have ALWAYS encouraged people to build and test YOUR circuit and report their results. I have never, to my knowledge, asked anyone to reproduce MY circuit. I have documented everything I've done, though, so if anyone should doubt what I do... they can indeed check it for themselves. Unlike some other people I can mention.

Quote

Which will certainly take this thread to new and unintended departures. The only good news is that Glen Lettenmaier has stopped dominating this thread with a discussion on it's history. For that matter nor does Powercat. Perhaps we're still moving in the right direction - albeit somewhat circuitously. Sadly TK also knows the value of 'filling the page'. And he's doing this to good effect by posting photos rather than video links. I think he realises by now that no-one bothers to dip in there to look.

She lies again. I am illustrating how easy it actually is to DOCUMENT one's claims with EVIDENCE. And my videos get an amazing number of views, you have no idea. Over 160,000 views of my Joule Thief video alone.

Quote

Frankly I'm much heartened by all this. I can sit back and let these rather unprincipled people display their motivations with that heavy handed overstatement - where the sheer excess undercuts their credibility. And NOTA BENE - they need not be legally accountable. That rather gives them the license to misrepresent to their heart's content. And indeed they do.

Moving on. I have finally seen that our home page carries a very significant proof of YET MORE technology that promises ever greater freedom from our utility suppliers. Thank you Harti for posting that. For the first time since he introduced this front page topical video - there is something that I look at time after time. I have been saying this since the beginning. The proof of over unity is going to MUSHROOM. First cold fusion - and now this? It is truly wonderful times that we're living in. I am well aware of the need to discredit our technology. We're not so much into the evidence as into the explanation. And that's the focus that TK's trying to manage.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. There is no evidence for your claim, Rosemary, because it's arisen from bogus math and misunderstandings-- wilful ignorance in other words.

Quote

Just be cautioned. And for those of you who still care about all this - PLEASE. Just apply that scroll function. I'm reasonably satisfied that there are yet those kindly academics who'll evaluate our protocols. Hopefully the sooner the better. But it may be that they won't engage unless forum guidelines are applied.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Just be cautioned? Is that another threat?
Forum guidelines? You can't be for real, you must be some kind of comedian.

25.6 million Joules in 100 minutes to 900 grams of water. A Joule is a Watt per Second. Over 46 million Watts to make your soup. You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's as if you are going around telling people they are green. No, I'm not green. Yes, Rosemary says, you are indeed green, and I can find two academics somewhere that might be able to tell you you're green, if only this forum would follow the rules. NO, I'm not green. YES, Rosemary says, anyone looking through these glasses can see that you are indeed green, and I'll sue you if you object and try to make me prove it. NO I"M NOT GREEN. YES YOU ARE, shouts Rosemary, and she waves her five-time rejected "article" proving you are green, as proof that you are green.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1373 on:** March 22, 2012, 06:14:48 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 05:14:43 AM

Thermal runaway as it's associated with MOSFETs is accounted for by an increase in current flow. We have had absolutely NO change in our waveform over the MOSFETs which waveforms indicate that there is NO INCREASE IN CURRENT FLOW. Nor have OUR transistors been unduly stressed. The difference between our claim and that of TK's is that we have the waveform downloads to prove this.

Poynty Point - do NOT try and negate the evidence by diminishing it's significance. That's TK's technique. And you see for yourself that it doesn't work.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

That must be why Rosemary used those huge heat sinks all stacked up together. HER transistors don't get warm, they just need some cuddly support.

IRFPG50 RDSS = 2.0 ohms
IRF830a RDSS = 1.4 ohms

Maybe one of your academics can explain what the implications are of these numbers. But you won't be able to understand them !!

Rosemary cries out "BUT YOU ARE GREEN NEVERTHELESS" as I walk by a mirror and see my normal healthy pink or brown glow.

ETA: I note that nobody is questioning my data or calculations. Therefore I must conclude that you all approve of them, including of course my demonstration of COP=infinity by showing that the battery had the same voltage after 4 hours of heating a load to 96.5 degrees Celsius. (I was just kidding about COP = 8 x infinity.... I know that you really aren't green).

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1374 on:** March 22, 2012, 06:17:24 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 05:45:11 AM

And guys, here's a nice little 'truth'.

'Necessity is the mother of invention'. Thankfully our escalating energy costs have also generated this 'necessity'. How nice is that?

Again, and kindest
Rosemary

That's as close to the "truth" as you've come in a long time, Rosemary. Careful that you don't burn yourself ... the Truth is dangerous.

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #1375 on:** March 22, 2012, 06:27:33 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 08:21:51 PM

Guys, It seems that Glen Lettenmaier's legal team need some time to marshal the facts here. Perhaps they're not quite as efficient as my own lonely lawyer. Would that I could afford an entire team to deal with a class action. Golly. But then again - one would would have expected an entire team to assemble some papers more quickly than that? Surely? A whole year? A class team for a class action and it'll take a whole year to get their ducks in a row? That seems unnecessarily 'extended'. If that was me I'd be inclined to think that they're not taking me seriously enough. Frankly I'd sack them. On the spot. I'd want to know why I was not being prioritised. Hopefully Glen will take this advice to heart and find himself some more effective representation. Perhaps he needs a second team. After all. His complaint is profound. He has appropriated an entire experiment and associated papers as his own property and he needs untold representation to enforce this. Absolutely. I see the need.

Anyway. I'll keep you posted. Certainly - to date - we've had nothing other than rather empty threats of action to be taken in a year's time. Please. I could be dead by then. God knows. I'm already rather old.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider. I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit, but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak. I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Lettenmaier
To: Stefan Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Libel Case - Rosemary Ainslie

Hi Stefan,

I was asked to get a listing of IP addresses that the Over Unity member Rosemary Ainslie has used to access
the Over Unity web site.

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.

I am only asking this of you to avoid any legal process that would arise to get this information from you, in a
timely manner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Glen Lettenmaier

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1376 on:** March 22, 2012, 06:52:24 AM »

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 06:27:33 AM

Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider.

Hello Glen,
I'm not sure that we're on the same page. In the first instance I need only prove my identity to those at the service address - and this is well established. And there is NO way that an IP address has EVER established an identity. Surely you know that? I wonder if you're not possibly trying to solicit my IP address for nefarious purposes? It's not something one usually makes generally available. And I'd be particularly reluctant to allow you easy access to this. We all know your earlier Skype boasts where you crashed into certain archives. It's well known. We're well aware of your talents in this regard.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 06:27:33 AM

I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit,

Indeed. LOL Quite possibly? One certainly hopes so.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 06:27:33 AM

but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak.

WHAT? I'm NOT actually able to appoint your own defense team. Quite apart from which you alleged you already had one. Some heavyweights? Not sure. I certainly got that general impression. But I can't appoint your lawyers. Sadly. I think it would be seen as prejudicial. LOL. eatenbyagrue - are you reading this? I would have thought this is somewhat unusual.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 22, 2012, 06:27:33 AM

I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

Thank you for this. At least that service address wasn't wasted. But I also think we shouldn't be talking to each other. I've appointed my attorney. You've appointed your team of attorneys. And I'm not sure that my attorney will see fit to talk directly to you Glen? I think we both require more professionalism here. With respect. You actually need first to bring an action to bear against me in support of your claimed ownership of our paper and of the 'discovery' related to our circuit. And I believe you've got a host of miscellaneous quarrels that will involve a 'class action' - as you put it.

Thank you for your efforts - nonetheless. They're richly entertaining.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1377 on:** March 22, 2012, 06:56:22 AM »

Quote

It seems that this thread of mine has now been appropriated by TK in a 'debunk' replication exercise that falls well short of a 'debunk' or a replication. Rather inappropriately he is also now desperately appealing to all and sundry to duplicate HIS replication.

LOL.... lie after lie. HERE is the circuit and test I want all and sundry to 'duplicate'. It's going to be kind of difficult though, since the CIRCUIT DIAGRAM SHOWN is NOT the diagram of the device shown.... is it, Rosemary. And wherever will anyone get all those clipleads, and how can anyone be expected to keep them straight?

And whatever are those huge heat sinks for, I wonder.

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #1378 on:** March 22, 2012, 07:07:59 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2012, 06:52:24 AM

Hello Glen,
I'm not sure that we're on the same page. In the first instance I need only prove my identity to those at the service address - and this is well established. And there is NO way that an IP address has EVER established an identity. Surely you know that? I wonder if you're not possibly trying to solicit my IP address for nefarious purposes? It's not something one usually makes generally available. And I'd be particularly reluctant to allow you easy access to this. We all know your earlier Skype boasts where you crashed into certain archives. It's well known. We're well aware of your talents in this regard.
Indeed. LOL Quite possibly? One certainly hopes so.
WHAT? I'm NOT actually able to appoint your own defense team. Quite apart from which you alleged you already had one. Some heavyweights? Not sure. I certainly got that general impression. But I can't appoint your lawyers. Sadly. I think it would be seen as prejudicial. LOL. eatenbyagrue - are you reading this? I would have thought this is somewhat unusual.
Thank you for this. At least that service address wasn't wasted. But I also think we shouldn't be talking to each other. I've appointed my attorney. You've appointed your team of attorneys. And I'm not sure that my attorney will see fit to talk directly to you Glen? I think we both require more professionalism here. With respect. You actually need first to bring an action to bear against me in support of your claimed ownership of our paper and of the 'discovery' related to our circuit. And I believe you've got a host of miscellaneous quarrels that will involve a 'class action' - as you put it.

Thank you for your efforts - nonetheless. They're richly entertaining.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I duly noted "REFUSAL" of request.

Thank You

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1379 on:** March 22, 2012, 07:08:59 AM »

Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened. It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing. And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members. Rest assured. This action is between him and me. He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted. I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical. I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend. Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation? That's my ONLY motivation here. I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY. And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 941768 times)

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

evolvingape

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.

Rosemary Ainslie

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.

TinselKoala

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.

TinselKoala

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.