Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 941228 times)

MileHigh · « **Reply #2160 on:** April 11, 2012, 08:47:28 AM »

Quote

No MileHigh. You'll need to do your own research here. Just as a clue - the power output depends on the level of the phase relationship between current and voltage. The more out of phase - the less power dissipated. TK's waveforms are entirely out of phase.

Actually - let me correct that. The waveforms shown in that shot of his are entirely out of phase. I still need to check on the video - if I get around to it.
Again
Rosie

Rosemary, the fact that you are not thinking, and are refusing to take me up on my challenge to you to start thinking, is really most unfortunate. If you have current flow and there is a resistance associated with your load, then you have power dissipation. The current and voltage will always be in phase for the resistive component of the load. You are confusing the concept of capacitive or inductive reactance with resistance.

P = i-squared x R. You know this formula.

I have no hope. Good luck on your "moderated" thread. If we want to respond we can do it on the Tar Baby thread and there will be full cross-pollination. So the concept of moderation is almost a moot point.

The strange thing is you know you are speaking to people that have worked in electronics and tech for many years and clearly have experience yet you only listen to them when it suits you. That's Rosieo Poseo "filtered impartiality."

The LEDs of DOOM are glowing off in the distance and the current that lights them is flowing straight through the function generator. Beware!

MileHigh

poynt99 · « **Reply #2161 on:** April 11, 2012, 06:32:58 PM »

Rosemary,

I have emailed you a copy of the "ofs" annotated diagram to your gmail account.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you choose.

In terms of any responses, please include detailed comments if anyone asserts that the annotations are incorrect.

In summary, the "ofs" indication is not that useful a piece of information. It actually has nothing to do with measurements involving any of the scope traces themselves.

.99

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #2162 on:** April 11, 2012, 10:01:56 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 05:06:32 AM

@fuzzy::
I see that Evan Robinson, the "page coordinator" of the PESWiki page, has the WRONG DIAGRAM up as the "latest" schematic.
Pretty strange, huh? Maybe somebody should email him so he can correct his error. Also I see that the original Quantum circuit is also published on that same page. And on the Mygeni page... YET ANOTHER incorrect circuit diagram is posted.
That's three incorrect circuit diagrams from a single person... who is now in the Tax Preparation business. Where are the "experts" and "academics" that signed off on that one?

Hi Tk,

Yep believe me Evan Robinson was sent several e-mails to each address that was available, on the Mygeni I have actually signed up but haven't attacked the errors yet just to give him a chance to possibly catch up with Rosemary's circus side show. It is very strange though Rosemary insists one COP>INFINITY device schematic but yet the one in her blog site is wrong, the one in paper titled "Proposed variation to Faradayâ€™s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure" is wrong and now the one at PESwiki is wrong also. There is apparently a huge break down in communication between all the authors of the COP>INFINITY papers and then the YouTube video is a total disaster by all technical engineering standards.

I do think that possibly one of the authors is responsible for the YouTube video and or the editing is Riaan Theron whom might of done the two (2) 3D videos on Rosemary's "dooziedont" YouTube account. Riaan Theron of South Africa a expert, and Rosemary needs some kind of a fancy 3D rendering of the Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing blah blah THESIS, and he could do it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo ) there has been emails also sent to him to find out if he was involved as a author and collaborator in the COP>INFINITY papers and video production.

Cheers,
Fuzzy

TinselKoala · « **Reply #2163 on:** April 12, 2012, 04:19:14 AM »

(sound of crickets chirping)

I think we scared her off. Or maybe they finally found the unsecured computer she was using when she was supposed to be in art therapy sessions.

picowatt · « **Reply #2164 on:** April 12, 2012, 05:12:36 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 07:19:35 AM

So Guys - that's it ..I hope. Certainly I've finally managed to answer all posts - for a change. I've got a few more to make during the course of the day and then - with luck I'll be able to operate on a thread that will be under my own jurisprudence. I don't think there will be any postings on it for a while. I've got a lot of work to do to get our apparatus built and ready for testing. And I've got spade work to do to get those data loggers up. And I still need to formalise some kind of relationship with our 'arbiters'. But I reckon one month - and I and you all will be able to finally determine if there's been any validity in anything at all that we've claimed. I'm personally interested to see how our batteries perform against the Q-array. Because, quite frankly - I simply don't know.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

While it may be true that you have responded to all posts, you have provided few answers of any help or substance to replicators or those reviewing your papers.

Referring only to the data provided by the schematic and 'scope captures in your first paper, I asked why Q1 was not turning on in FIG 3 and FIG 6, even though it is readily apparent from the 'scope captures that it should be. Instead of providing an answer, you insist the 'scope was being read incorrectly, which I can assure you, it was not.

Something is wrong with Q1 during the tests referenced by FIG 3 and FIG 6. Q1 has failed or is not in circuit. I believe in the tests referenced by FIG 3 and FIG 6, Q1 is in circuit but has sustained damage prior to these tests. There appears to be additional clamping evident on the CH 3 signal in FIG 3, FIG 4, and FIG 6 during the negative portion of the cycle that is not evident in FIG 5. This is likely an additional indication of the health of Q1.

In FIG 5, the indicated CH 3 gate drive acheives approx. +6.5 volts and, as it should, Q1 turns on and a current flow of approximately 2 amps is indicated by the CSR trace.

In FIG 3 and FIG 5 the indicated CH 3 gate drive acheives approx. +12 volts and yet, zero current flow is indicated by the CSR trace, which can only mean that Q1 is, for some reason, not functioning. You argued that the 'scope was being read incorrectly and that it somehow is really indicating only around +6 volts. Even if this were so, that voltage is still sufficient to turn on Q1, but again, as per the CSR trace, Q1 is not turning on.

It seems the bulk of your observed anomalies or effects are moreso to do with the oscillation phase of your circuit, so possibly the malfunctioning Q1 is immaterial to your claim, or that indeed, it may in the end turn out to be serendipitous. However, in order to replicate the circuit accurately, this issue as well as a few others needs to be addressed.

If you are going to have .99's annotated 'scope capture reviewed by someone with a technical background whose opinion you trust, I would appreciate it if you would please print and send this post along as well, and respond with their comments when available.

Possibly .99 can copy this post and email it to you if that makes it easier for you to print.

Thank-you,
PW

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2165 on:** April 12, 2012, 11:12:19 AM »

Quote from: picowatt on April 12, 2012, 05:12:36 AM

While it may be true that you have responded to all posts, you have provided few answers of any help or substance to replicators or those reviewing your papers.

Are you still implying that you're 'reviewing'? And on what authority? And are you a 'self appointed' reviewer also implying that TK is 'replicating'?

The problem as I see it picowatt is this. This thread was proposed for a multiplicity of reasons - and as I've said - it's objects have rather moved with the wind - shifted with the times. However. It was NEVER intended for any of you members to try and 'review'. Had this EVER been my intention then I would most certainly have produced the corrected papers. And if you were to ASSUME the right to review then you would need to disclose your proof of credentials. Which would also require a full disclosure of your name in order to validate those credentials. And for you to propose any kind of review process in the context of a thread that has been 'blazed' to hell with a parade of unprofessional calumny, slander and traducement that is probably unparalleled in any of these forums - is a sheer parody of pretension and absurdity. It CANNOT constitute a review. A properly conducted review - by definition - is done in private. And depending on the terms of that contract - it is either between the reviewer and the editor - or between the reviewer and the collaborators and the editor. PRECISELY to obviate minor or major amendments that may be required. I am assured that it is a rare paper that does not need amendment - in the same way that an article may require editing - or a book - prior its to publication. Which makes your rather public efforts in this regard - less than professional - less than appropriate and considerably less than morally acceptable. You IMPLY errors and you PARADE your opinion as FACT before a full determination. A public review is a contradiction in terms. The only possible public evaluation would be with a full DEMONSTRATION. And thus far we have NOT given this. Else the protocols require that the reviewer accept the facts as given and do not challenge them unless there is clear and unequivocal proof of error - fraudulent or otherwise. And you have PRESUMED much in this regard.

My further concerns here are based on your rather reckless and public advisement that our Q1 MOSFET is faulty. We had NEVER changed that transistor. Certainly not for any of the tests shown in that paper. The only ones we replaced - two or possibly three of them (I can't quite remember) - were on the Q2 array. Which also means that if Q1 was faulty for the duration of that First Test then it was and is faulty on all subsequent tests. While we have, indeed, subsequently replaced that Q1 - it STILL and NONETHELESS - gives us the same values as reported in our papers. I look forward to showing PROOF of this. In fact, since this has now become such an overriding concern of yours - I shall take the trouble to move through a variety of those transistors to PROVE that your complaint related to its integrity - IS UTTERLY VOIDABLE. And I would then demand that you PUBLICLY retract those 'assumptions' of yours. IF indeed it is acting in a way that is atypical - then it is not dependent on the vagaries of one - but of ALL those transistors. And it is also MEASURABLE and DEMONSTRABLE and REPEATEDLY so - which, at its least, would make it 'of interest' to SCIENCE.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2166 on:** April 12, 2012, 11:53:05 AM »

to PICOWATT continued/...

Correctly you should have requested that we 'check' the MOSFET to determine that it has not somehow been compromised - IF that was your concern. It is a very easy test to manage this. And you most certainly should NOT advertise as FACT what has not yet been PROVED. That is both 'reckless' and 'unprofessional'. Added to which - if you recall - you asked the question related to the voltage measured on channel 3 with the kind of persistence that - at its kindest - would be considered abusive. I am NOT in your time zone. I SLEEP while most of your posts are made. Why then do you DEMAND such a prompt reply? And that demand of yours interspersed with abusive echoes from your acolytes as they take that 'reckless' advisement of yours as 'fact'. They use it as an opportunity to rampage through another 5 pages of this thread, in the space of ONE NIGHT - with ever more samples of their somewhat reckless and liberal doses of slander. And why should I reply to you at ALL? Again. I most certainly am NOT looking for a review. What you advised was that you were going to replicate. That is your choice. I put it to you that you are not qualified to review. And if you are - THEN PROVE IT.

Then. To get back to more rather glaring evidence of collusion and collaboration between you and TK et al. You ENDORSED his video where he showed the oscillations taken over the battery and the load. Had you been an EXPERT â€“ in any sense of the word â€“ then you would have done better to advise him that he was measuring the 'wrong thing'. When I pointed this out â€“ together with the glaring omission of some required phase shifts, he came back with a video that was even more glaringly inappropriate. Why did you not point out to him that the phase shifts referred to have nothing whatsoever to do with the signal from the transistor and the load resistor? IF indeed you are that EXPERT as you're trying so hard to IMPLY - then you should most certainly be explaining how utterly inappropriate was that nonsense. That TK could ever seriously propose to establish the rate of current flow from the battery based on a product of the voltage across that load resistor and the battery is alarming. And that he does this with the improbable evidence of perfect â€˜in phaseâ€™ voltages â€“ beggars belief. Not only are there no phase shifts â€“ but what adjustments did he make for impedance? This is all the proof needed to show that he knows next to nothing about power analysis or that he hopes that no-one reading here does. And to further compound his generally compounded confusions â€“ he then shows us all - a veritable miracle of coincidence in phase shift between that battery and the resistor? Which would require the direct intervention of God Himself to orchestrate such a remarkable degree of anomalous co-incidence. Such PERFECT correspondence would exceed the standard model predictions with implications that put over unity in the shade. And then too. He continues to qualify this utterly improbable evidence by giving us a second video where he tries to equate the phase shift in line with the voltage across the transistor and the load? So utterly OFF the subject. So far from the point as our Cape is from the North Pole. So distant from relevance as to be laughable. And yet YOU and HE SERIOUSLY propose that you're EXPERTS and qualified to do any kind of REVIEW AT ALL?

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2167 on:** April 12, 2012, 11:54:41 AM »

Now - I'm still not finished. To get back to the problem that you saw where the GATE should be entirely ON yet no current is shown to flow from the battery supply. The OFFSET term is most certainly related to the choice of AC or DC coupling. Not only was this explained to me but I know this because when and if I apply the AC coupled option then the only thing that varies is that zero reference. And my advices were most certainly correct. You should NOT apply the voltage as per the display - but you should superimpose an AC value. Which is its PEAK TO PEAK value. But then too - you more than anyone - should be able to explain why the OFFSET on the function generator can vary that reference even further. And very obviously it is able to move that zero setting to even LOWER than the actual reference as an AC coupled reference. In effect, instead of loudly and rather repetitively assuring us all that either the instrument is wrong - or that the settings are wrong or that the MOSFET is wrong - you should have known that the DC presentation of the voltage on channel 3 is qualified by other factors. The performance of the MOSFET is not the result of serendipity. The position of the zero crossing line on the LeCroy is not subject to vagary. And it is both possible and feasible to entirely restrict the flow of current depending on that offset. It is determined by the applied OFFSET from a signal generator - whether it's a function generator or whether it's a 555. Again. I look forward to showing this in due course. Then to get back to your point where you allege that should I default to AC coupling then Iâ€™d corrupt my machine and all its stored data. What nonsense. One can choose AC or DC coupling without any â€˜damageâ€™ to the machine at all. We set it to DC because weâ€™re trying to determine a DC value as it relates to the battery supply.

So. It is my opinion that your paraded excess of partiality - your attempts at embarrassing me by your continual contradiction of our claim - your obvious lack of knowledge of power analysis - or alternatively - your readiness to endorse TK's obvious lack of knowledge about this - is proof enough that your intentions here are to DENY the evidence. Which, in my opinion is less than impartial. And, in any event, I put it to you that you are wasting your time. There is only one way to evaluate the facts - and that is by demonstration. Which we will most certainly do. And now that I have this much meat to show the level of neurotic denial required against our claim - I am more motivated than I have been in a long while. I intend buying our little demonstration WaveJet LeCroy â€“ which thus far has only been on loan. And I will then have the real pleasure of spending some time filming this to show you all how it is that our numbers in those papers are correctly presented. Until then I propose that you try and pretend to some level of impartiality and try and correct some of those sad little videos of TK's that he's relying on to earn that fee that he boasts will buy him his Buick and his little house at the coast. Else you, like him, will lose all credibility based on an obvious want of some unbiased assessments. And if you wish to pretend to be a reviewer in some new and eccentric context â€“ then feel free. I for one wonâ€™t endorse that pretense.

Regards to you picowatt.
Rosemary

changed 'lack' to 'excess'

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #2168 on:** April 12, 2012, 12:00:55 PM »

Howdy members and knowledgeable experimentalist,

Here is a posting that Stefan did about a year ago with a protocol for the testing and evaluation of the device with a CLAIM of COP>INFINITY ....

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

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg285971/#msg285971 Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 10:28:48 AM

Hi Rosemary,

why donÂ´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the
COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.

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

I think there should be a discussion on Stefan's recommendations on the testing and evaluation to be done in a timely manner the items number one (1) through number six (6) is a good starting point for anyone involved doing verifiable testing. There will be of some numbers that will need some correcting for content and new developments that has happened from one year ago prior to any new testing done or required.

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

Cheers,
FTC

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #2169 on:** April 12, 2012, 12:04:51 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 05:06:32 AM

@fuzzy::
I see that Evan Robinson, the "page coordinator" of the PESWiki page, has the WRONG DIAGRAM up as the "latest" schematic.
Pretty strange, huh? Maybe somebody should email him so he can correct his error. Also I see that the original Quantum circuit is also published on that same page. And on the Mygeni page... YET ANOTHER incorrect circuit diagram is posted.
That's three incorrect circuit diagrams from a single person... who is now in the Tax Preparation business. Where are the "experts" and "academics" that signed off on that one?

Hi Tk,

Yep believe me Evan Robinson was sent several e-mails to each address that was available, on the Mygeni I have actually signed up but haven't attacked the errors yet just to give him a chance to possibly catch up with Rosemary's circus side show. It is very strange though Rosemary insists one COP>INFINITY device schematic but yet the one in her blog site is wrong, the one in paper titled "Proposed variation to Faradayâ€™s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure" is wrong and now the one at PESwiki is wrong also. There is apparently a huge break down in communication between all the authors of the COP>INFINITY papers and then the YouTube video is a total disaster by all technical engineering standards.

I do think that possibly one of the authors is responsible for the YouTube video and or the editing is Riaan Theron whom might of done the two (2) 3D videos on Rosemary's "dooziedont" YouTube account. Riaan Theron of South Africa a expert, and Rosemary needs some kind of a fancy 3D rendering of the Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing blah blah THESIS, and he could do it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo ) there has been emails also sent to him to find out if he was involved as a author and collaborator in the COP>INFINITY papers and video production.

Cheers,
Fuzzy

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #2170 on:** April 12, 2012, 12:09:51 PM »

Howdy members and guests,

Again we have Rosemary totally unaware of the posting or was it a choice Rosemary made on ignoring the posting that's been asked now the FORTH time and posting it's been answered ?

This important "fact" of which schematics were "EVER" used and documented in any testing and evaluation that needs clarification from the "INVENTOR" of the COP>INFINITY device.

The ramifications if this schematic ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) was used and misrepresented as "NOT" being used for testing and evaluation of any high inductive resistor heating loads over 6 amps it wouldn't be professional although at this point does your reputation Rosemary matter it's fairly well been discredited now anyway.

If there is any error it needs to be corrected there cannot be replicators and verifiers assumptions always made because "YOU" Rosemary refuse to answer any questions that may discredit your unproven "Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing" standard model "THESIS" that only you understand, always tied some how to all your unproven COP>INFINITY device(s).

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318062/#msg318062 Reply #1911 on: April 07, 2012, 10:45:26 AM

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ??

Is that "ONE" question to hard now ....

No more blah, blah, blah ..... I'll keep posting this a thousand times just like you do your THESIS crap until you answer the question !!!

CHEERS,
FTC

TinselKoala · « **Reply #2171 on:** April 12, 2012, 01:00:07 PM »

Rosemary deserves a prize all right. I just don't know whether to call it the "MYLOW" prize or the "Archer QUINN" prize. Maybe just the "Ainslie" prize.

At least MyLOW and Quinn grasped the principle of "open source" and "replication."

Remember when MyLOW was trying to get everybody to measure the position of his magnets to the hundredth of a millimeter with a caliper? And when Quinn kept promising to show something that actually worked, that he already had made .... and the best he could manage was a fifth of a turn, then he'd stack on some more magnets, smoke another cigarette, and jump up and down yelling "oy've climbed the Wall!!"

Yes.... The Ains-lie prize. Awarded for the highest ratio of words to actual performance. She does approach COP > Infinity in that area anyway. An entire year of talking and not a bit of new data and not a retraction or correction of any of her many errors and false claims.

After all this time we still don't even know what the "correct" schematic is, and the "inventor" has made no effort to clean up the mess of wrong and misleading information that exists, even in the publications of her own co-authors. And instead of carrying on a productive dialog with "replicators" and testers of her extremely radical claims, she engages in this interminable bloviating and "holier-than-thou" attitude while wallowing in the most incredible ignorance and arrogance imaginable, even more so than Archer Quinn. For months and months and months... and to this day we still are encountering conflicting schematics, incorrect mathematics, faulty reasoning, and contradictory explanations of anomalous data..... and I'm not talking about "batteries that don't run down". I'm talking about the scope shots from the apparatus that indicate either a malfunctioning component or some other unexplained mode of operation. In other words, RAW DATA that conflicts with the reported events of the experimentation.

Rosemary Ainslie has been uncooperative, unhelpful, secretive, insulting, misleading and downright mendacious during the entire history of her "open source" project. In fact I believe that more progress would have been made to this point.... had she not been involved at all.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #2172 on:** April 12, 2012, 01:18:19 PM »

Look.... Rosemary actually managed to utter one true fact in all that rant above.

Quote

And, in any event, I put it to you that you are wasting your time.

It should no longer be necessary to refute Ainslie's lies and mischaracterisations point by point. It is clear that she has severe cognitive difficulties, since she evidently cannot even comprehend what people say in written text or spoken word. She certainly cannot comprehend what an oscilloscope screen tells her.

What is the phase relationship between the battery oscillations and the shunt oscillations shown in this scope shot, Rosemary? Are you achieving heating of your load here, or not?
How is it different from the phase relationship I show from Tar Baby taken from the same points? (Taken NOT as you mendaciously claim from some other location of your own imaginings.)

(It appears that the forum is playing games with attachments again. I am referring to Rosemary's Paper 2, Figure 8.)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #2173 on:** April 12, 2012, 02:04:05 PM »

For just one example, she states:

Quote

Then. To get back to more rather glaring evidence of collusion and collaboration between you and TK et al. You ENDORSED his video where he showed the oscillations taken over the battery and the load. Had you been an EXPERT â€“ in any sense of the word â€“ then you would have done better to advise him that he was measuring the 'wrong thing'. When I pointed this out â€“ together with the glaring omission of some required phase shifts, he came back with a video that was even more glaringly inappropriate. Why did you not point out to him that the phase shifts referred to have nothing whatsoever to do with the signal from the transistor and the load resistor? IF indeed you are that EXPERT as you're trying so hard to IMPLY - then you should most certainly be explaining how utterly inappropriate was that nonsense. That TK could ever seriously propose to establish the rate of current flow from the battery based on a product of the voltage across that load resistor and the battery is alarming. And that he does this with the improbable evidence of perfect â€˜in phaseâ€™ voltages â€“ beggars belief. Not only are there no phase shifts â€“ but what adjustments did he make for impedance? This is all the proof needed to show that he knows next to nothing about power analysis or that he hopes that no-one reading here does. And to further compound his generally compounded confusions â€“ he then shows us all - a veritable miracle of coincidence in phase shift between that battery and the resistor? Which would require the direct intervention of God Himself to orchestrate such a remarkable degree of anomalous co-incidence. Such PERFECT correspondence would exceed the standard model predictions with implications that put over unity in the shade. And then too. He continues to qualify this utterly improbable evidence by giving us a second video where he tries to equate the phase shift in line with the voltage across the transistor and the load? So utterly OFF the subject. So far from the point as our Cape is from the North Pole. So distant from relevance as to be laughable. And yet YOU and HE SERIOUSLY propose that you're EXPERTS and qualified to do any kind of REVIEW AT ALL?

I have NEVER posted a measurement taken "across the load resistor". I monitor the same points monitored by Ainslie and detailed in the video and the various schematics. The mosfet common drains are actually a critical measurement of performance and indeed are monitored in Rosemary's demo video, but are left out... for some reason.... in the papers. They would reveal instantly, for instance, whether or not there was any problem with one or more mosfets in the operating circuit. But the phase shifts I illustrate, and any power measurements I have made, have always used the voltage drop across the shunt (CVR) and the voltage on the battery-- the same locations used in the NERD team's scope shots, math trace calculations, and performance claims. I can show this on diagrams and the actual circuit. Rosemary cannot show anything to support her contentions about my data. Where has she ever shown any "adjustments made for impedance?" Her math traces are straight point-by-point multiplications of the current trace and battery voltage trace NOT DESKEWED or in any other way "adjusted" for impedance... or even the simple RESISTANCE of the current viewing resistor.

The scope shots that I have posted indicate the same "phase shifts" that are shown in Rosemary's shots. The most recent ones are take ACROSS THE BATTERY and ACROSS THE CURRENT VIEWING RESISTOR, that is, the SAME points used for Rosemary's "MATH" traces shown in all her LeCroy scope shots from both papers and in the video.

Rosemary is simply ranting from her usual place of total misconception, ignorance, and mendacity. Instead of showing evidence for her claims she just gets stuff wrong totally.

Anyone can look at her Figure 8 from Paper 2 and see her phase relationships between the oscillations on the CVR shunt, and the oscillations on the battery trace. And anyone can see that Tar Baby's phase relationships from the same points are the same as those. Anyone who understands how to read the oscilloscope traces, that is, instead of the numbers in boxes.

I would be very glad to have anyone _coherent_ criticise my video demonstrations. Tell me where I'm going wrong in the demos and how to make them better. And I know about lighting and steady camera work, believe me, so you don't need to mention those.

Collusion and collaboration? Rosemary, you are paranoid, literally, and yes that is a psychological diagnosis. PicoWatt and I don't know each other, we have only communicated on this thread and one other, and maybe by one or two PMs of little consequence. We just both happen to be right about what we are telling you... collaborating and colluding in disseminating the truth, I suppose.... truth that you can also get from many other sources, all colluding and collaborating. Even the manufacturers of your oscilloscope are in collusion with us.
PW clearly has much more experience than I do in these matters and apparently actually does work for a living, in stark contrast to myself. You really should learn to respect your "elders" who have studied and practiced what you only dream of and preach. I myself get absolutely no compensation for this, in fact I am out several hundred dollars of my own hard-scrabbled money. Any characterisation of me as some kind of paid minion of the Forces of Free Energy Suppression is, once again, another lie and libel on the part of RA.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2174 on:** April 12, 2012, 04:07:06 PM »

Guys,

That last post of TK's relies on the association of prior claims that were, presumably, not proved. I have NEVER made any claims about the battery being recharged as a result of that circuit configuration. On the contrary. We do NOT need that to prove the anomaly of a negative wattage. Again. This value is that absurd that it has no meaning at all within any standard paradigms. However. I was more than ready to show this to Poynty Point and/or Stefan and/or Professor Steven E Jones. And right now I'm making sure that we can all evaluate the battery performance in a wholly public demonstration - AS WELL. Then I, like you, will learn if there is any value at all in that computed 'negative' number. I simply do not know. None of us do. And we'll also be able to test our earlier claim related to COP>17. And we're more than ready to do this from a 555 signal as from a function generator. And we intend using both and testing batteries against a control - on both. That's the first point.

Secondly - I am NOT in a position to evaluate Mylow's claims. But what I know from my colleagues is that they were never convinced by TK's debunk. Their opinion was that the 'wire' was superimposed on the film. I don't know. I suspect that they both gave up because they were being attacked. I have NO idea if anyone was there to help Mylow. But I have LOTS of it. I have the encouragement of many of you in emails and in personal messages. And I have my colleagues who are equally committed to these results and to finding explanations for the real and repeated evidence of anomalies. And I also know that IF I were one fraction weaker than I actually am - the effect of this combined onslaught from these self-appointed commentators - which is just a polite use of the word - would most certainly have dissuaded me from continuing. Of course it gets me down. And my family have often requested that I leave this well alone. But I cannot. I am compelled to share with you all the REALITIES of these numbers. And I share that commitment with my colleagues. These results matter. They matter in a way that is more important than my health, wealth and happiness. And I will NOT stop until I manage to prove it. I would be glad to do a demonstration - provided only that it is publicly and fairly arbitrated. And frankly if that needs to be shown in a court of law or under the harsh light of a video then I'll do it - either option - AS REQUIRED.

I cannot talk about prior claims. I only know our own. And I look forward to showing this to you all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And TK - You seem to object to the number of words that I use in these protests of mine. They are vastly outnumbered by yours. And if I add those others by your 'co-conspirators' then they are a mere 'fraction' of your input. Conservatively I'd say that as a group your contributions exceed mine by a factor of 6. So. Don't give me that about 'words'. You're considerably more verbose. And you have all of you occupied considerably more thread space than me.

Rosie Pose

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 941228 times)

MileHigh

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

poynt99

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

fuzzytomcat

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

picowatt

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.

fuzzytomcat

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

fuzzytomcat

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.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.