continued/...

This is my claim: If the NERD device is "overunity" then TB is too, by the same measurement methods and analyses.

WHAT measurements?  WHAT analysis?  Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis.  And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.

Is this a claim of "debunking" or "replication"? Tar Baby has already done everything that the claimant's device has ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN to do. It is time for the CLAIMANT to stop obfuscating, and start demonstrating.  Let the claimant show that her device does something differently from Tar Baby.

Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests.  I have been bitten.  I know how you operate.  Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim. 

If the claimant wishes to complain about what I'm doing with Tar Baby, the correct AND ONLY way to do it will be to show the NERD device doing something different than Tar Baby when tested in the same way. I have illustrated MANY possible tests and subtests.

So you keep telling us.  The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity.  I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS.  Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk.  Unfortunately.

One that I would like to see right now is a confirmation of the 110 nanoHenry value cited for the inductance of the claimant's 4 ordinary 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistors in parallel.... because my resistors of the exact same type measure 7 microHenry each. This is done on a meter that measures a known 1 microHenry inductor as 1 microHenry and a 1.5 millHenry inductor as 1.5 millHenry. In other words, the meter I used is accurate in the range used and with the measurement method I used, and I demonstrate  this for anyone to see, try for themselves and refute if they find something different.  The claimant claims that the shunt inductance of NERD is 110 nanoHenry. I question this because of readings I have made and I've asked the simple thing: for the readings to be repeated in an unequivocal manner. What is the response from the claimant? Post after post talking about some "10 ohm" resistors in her imagination and not a single responsive and substantive response. "Here's the part number of the special non-inductive resistors that look just like ordinary power resistors, and here's a video showing us measuring them on our fancy inductance meter, and here's the meter measuring a known inductance so you'll know the meter is being used correctly." That is the kind of response that a cooperative claimant would make, and that is the kind of response that I myself have made, many times. Checkable references, real data, repeatable tests, full disclosure.... these things are not forthcoming from the present claimant.

IT IS IRRELEVANT.  The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance.  And the impedance relates to the applied frequency.  If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt.  And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply.  Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim.  Do you even read my answers? 

A cooperative claimant would refute me with FACTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS in an afternoon. But all the present claimant can do is... claim. And this is just a single example of a subtest where Tar Baby and NERD could be compared.... if there was something that Tar Baby could be compared to.

To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame.  One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy.  Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.

Let me list some of the real differences between Tar Baby and the NERD device.

1. TB has the same medium-duty anodized aluminium heatsinks on all 5 mosfets. These are commercial heatsinks designed for the TO-247 package and heat-transfer paste is used and the mounting bolt is torqued to spec.
The NERD has the Q1 on a small apparently improvised heatsink and the Q2s on much larger, also apparently improvised hunks of finned aluminium. I can't tell whether heat transfer paste or electrical isolation was used. Since the circuit is a common-drain circuit, electrical isolation from the heatsinks isn't necessary, but thermal paste should be used.

2. TB has sockets on both ends of cables to connect the mosfets to the motherboard. NERD uses soldered connections at the mosfet leads themselves (a potential source of damage) and clipleads terminating onto threaded rods for the Q2 connections (a potential source of noisy, high-resistance contacts) , and crimped automotive ring connectors for most of the rest of the circuit (ditto).

3. TB has 4, 1 Ohm, 10 Watt power resistors in parallel as the current viewing resistor (called the "shunt" by the NERDs). These are ordinary "cement" type wirewound ceramic-encased power resistors of the common type, ubiquitous world-wide and clearly marked. They have a reliably measured inductance of 7 microHenry each and a total stack inductance of slightly under 2 microHenry, which includes some small lead length. The NERD device uses what appear to be identical resistors... they are even marked the same, except for the manufacturer... and they are listed as such in the NERD table of materials. But the cited inductance in the NERD non-publications is given as 110 nanoHenry.... a seemingly implausibly low value, not explained or confirmed anywhere.

4. TB has a load inductance, including lead wires, of 74 microHenry. A commercial water heater load apparently comparable to the NERD load also has a measured inductance of 73-74 microHenry. The NERD device load has a stated inductance value of only a few microHenry.... also implausibly low. It is possible that this load is indeed "custom built" to achieve this low inductance value. Considering the NERD team's demonstrated difficulty with measurements and calculations, I would like to see this measurement repeated reliably and confirmed... as I just don't believe it.

5. TB has been shown to discharge its batteries when running in modes that produce measurable load heating. No comparable testing has been shown for the NERD device.

6. TB makes no claims wrt COP or overunity performance, other than that when analysed by the same methods as NERD, the same results will be obtained. NERD, on the other hand, claims overunity performance, COP>INFINITY, load heating without battery depletion, and experimental confirmation of a theory with energy coming from superluminal zipons.

7. TB can use either IRF830a mosfets or the IRFPG50. NERD is limited to the PG50 -- but I'll bet it would work just the same and give the NERDs the same results if they used the 830as.

8. TB can use a 555 timer to make a negative-going gate drive pulse and so does not need a function generator. NERD has never demonstrated running using a 555 timer, especially not in the negative-going gate drive pulse mode.

9. TB is built compactly and uses small lightweight batteries, hence could fit within the criteria of the Overunity Prize.... if it were applying, that is. The NERD device is large and uses lots of big heavy batteries, and the rules would have to be stretched (not to mention credulity) to allow it to compete in the first place.

10. TB uses a small piece of commercial circuit board material for its motherboard, with 0.1 inch hole spacing. NERD uses a much larger piece of white material that looks like thick pegboard, with 1/4 inch holes on a 1 inch grid.

These are real differences. Do they make the difference? Well... that is what side-by-side testing is designed to reveal. Unfortunately it is difficult to perform side-by-side testing when one side simply refuses to show up for the tests.

In sports... this is usually considered a default victory for the team that DOES show up.

And as for this slew of misrepresentations.

Of course you can see that what she says in her reply to you is mostly garbage. Especially the part about "integration". The "integrations" that she has shown on the scope traces are incorrectly performed (not incorporating shunt value, not integrating the correct waveforms, not integrating over a suitable sampling interval, not accounting for probe skew, etc) and her values come from the data dumps to spreadsheet analysis, NOT live integration of proper waveforms to determine energy flows. Anyone who is familiar with the use of oscilloscopes for power measurements can confirm this, and the information that supports me is easily available from the scope manufacturers and others.

When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence.  We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration.  It's not difficult.  Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this.  The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples.  You can't.  You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope.  And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT?  HOW ODD?

The "power dissipation" claims she makes are also false. There is indeed more than one way to measure power dissipated, she does not use "standard protocols" at all, and so on. But of course you know this too.

We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests.  Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.

Her ignorance regarding the use of the Clarke-Hess sampling integrating power meter -- an "industry standard" instrument being used exactly as designed -- is a perfect example. Instead of focusing on a real limitation (the manufacturer's cited bandwidth of accuracy) she gets muddled about how it's connected in the circuit...even though it is connected exactly as an oscilloscope (with its own CVR) is connected. In other words, she again betrays her monumental wilful ignorance of proper standard power testing protocols, while at the same time proclaiming that she knows more than anyone else about it.

I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations.  I've referenced it here.

I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this..

I can easily accept that the readings of the CH may be off by a few percent due to the bandwidth accuracy limitation. However, it is being used correctly and it's monitoring the same circuit "input" point as the NERDs monitor, and in addition it also monitors something they did not: the power _delivered_ to the load. Stated another way, it is monitoring the power drawn by the load, or yet another way.... the power that must be dissipated in the load. The CH's accuracy in this regard has been rigorously tested USING A CALORIMETER-- a real one -- and the CH's readings of power dissipation by the load agree with calorimetric measurements. Call the bandwidth into question: OK, that is a real issue, an empirical one, and can be addressed by calibration against standards. Call the hookups and the basic methodology and basic accuracy into question -- that's just ignorant whining and is without merit.

Rigorous calibrations?  Really?  And then it's out by a small percentage?  PLEASE?  And let me re-iterate TK.  Here....

I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this..

It's all SPIN.  Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim.  And even now you have NOT addressed our claim.  Only something that you infer may be related to our claim.  LOL.  And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose

Then use a separate battery.  And monitor it's voltage to determine the output.  That's simple.
Our impedance was determined by measurements made by 'EXPERTS' on excellent and calibrated machines from well respected laboratories.  And whether their inductance values are greater or less - will not make an ounce of difference to the negative value of the current flow determined from the voltage across those shunts.  And it is that negative current flow that predominates each cycle that is of interest and is the entire substance of the claim.
We do NOT claim COP> INFINITY.  We MEASURE COP Infinity.  That's NOT the same thing.  We argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source.  Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY.  What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source.  THEN - there would be no further EVIDENCE of COP Infinity. But then we do not know how to measure the energy.  Any more.  Because those new protocols need to be forged by EXPERTS TK.  Not by you.  As it is you can't even get your head around this distinction.  And to this end we have written that paper.
IF there is an alternate supply of energy that has, heretofore, NOT been factored into power analysis - then the EVIDENCE would be that we would have exceeded unity.  The prize is offered for over unity.  Therefore we would most certainly qualify for any over unity prize.  Whether or not we demand that prize is immaterial.  It's our qualification for that prize that's at issue.  Because when the 'new energy source' is accepted - then too the there will be no further resistance to the possibility.  It will become widely accepted and widely applied.  And THAT's our real prize.  Nothing else.

/...

continued/...Nor will I.  Any further tests done on our claim will be under conditions that make our arguments unassailable.  And that will involve considerably more tests than those that you DEMAND that we perform for you.  You seem to forget that I've already advanced evidence on prior tests - that were 'replicated' and then 'denied' by various members.  I am not about to HOP SKIP and JUMP again - until we have some kind of contractual undertaking to not have our thread either 'flamed' or 'locked'.  And that the evidence presented is then full and satisfactory proof of the claim.  Which requires some homework. And when this is completed - then we will bore you all to tears with copious evidence.
You CLAIM that we have misrepresented the inductance and the wattage on our resistors.  I DENY THIS.  You make a song and dance about it because you believe you can thereby FAULT our claim.  It is IRRELEVANT to our claim.  What you're trying to do here TK is capitalise on any possible error without actually first establishing IF it is an extant error - and IF that error would, in any event make any material difference to our claim.  In other words you are using 'cheap shots' to underscore your points and to cast aspersions on our competence and on our claim.  Let me remind you.  Whether the resistance of those shunts are established at 0.25 Ohms or even 6 Ohms - or any value at all - the product of that NEGATIVE VOLTAGE MEASURED ACROSS THOSE RESISTORS WOULD STILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  That is the point of our claim.  Again.  Has this sunk in yet? 
IF your circuit is able to measure a negative voltage across your shunt - then you are INDEED in the right territory.  And THEN we would acknowledge that you MAY have replicated our claim.  Until then you MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT.  You have only ATTEMPTED THIS.  And failed. 
 
/...

continued/...WHAT measurements?  WHAT analysis?  Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis.  And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.
Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests.  I have been bitten.  I know how you operate.  Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim. 
So you keep telling us.  The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity.  I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS.  Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk.  Unfortunately.
IT IS IRRELEVANT.  The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance.  And the impedance relates to the applied frequency.  If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt.  And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply.  Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim.  Do you even read my answers? 
To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame.  One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy.  Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.

continued/...You, as a builder and tester of claims - IF that's how you see yourself - need to get some fundamental schooling relating to power analysis - which is SORELY LACKING in your building and testing.  We keep asking for evidence of this.  You keep insinuating you have provided this evidence.  Where?  In those videos? 
My WORK has been cut out defending the insinuations that you have made related to my claim.  When those insinuations stop then I will be able to devote more time to my own tests.  Do NOT think that I'll sit back and let you misrepresent - malign - abuse - and discredit 10 years of our hard work - while you present one spurious argument after another that our claim is void.  YOU have made this my full time concern.  Not me.
While I cannot reference our thesis then NOR is there in value in our evidence and our claim.  This requirement is ABSURD  and insulting to those many years and many hours of hard work applied to the thesis and to the proof of that thesis that is parcel of this CLAIM.  How DARE you assume the right to determine the basis of our claim?  Who do you think that you are that you can DENY the very foundation of our claim simply because you do not find it expedient?  Without that thesis - there IS no claim.  The experimental evidence was required to PROVE THAT THESIS.  NOTHING ELSE.
I've argued this AT LENGTH.  Just go back and CHECK your facts.  This obsessive interest in the inductance of the shunts is ABSURDLY IRRELEVANT to our claim.

Regards nonetheless
Rosie Pose

And as for this slew of misrepresentations.
When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence.  We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration.  It's not difficult.  Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this.  The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples.  You can't.  You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope.  And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT?  HOW ODD?We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests.  Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations.  I've referenced it here.Rigorous calibrations?  Really?  And then it's out by a small percentage?  PLEASE?  And let me re-iterate TK.  Here....
It's all SPIN.  Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim.  And even now you have NOT addressed our claim.  Only something that you infer may be related to our claim.  LOL.  And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose

Look everyone on the content of all nonsense postings above that wasn't even directed towards Rosemary and are you also tired of getting a "NOTIFICATION" with each posting after posting on the same subject matter from Rosemary whom cannot put everything in one post.

This trash from Rosemary has been posted over and over again in the "LOCKED DOWN" thread http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/  with a couple things in common. Rosemary has only learned how to falsify documentation a YouTube video and cherry pick information to justify her THESIS.

Where are all the so called EXPERTS of Rosemary's or the authors of her falsified papers and YouTube video.

Rosemary the SUPER TROLL is nothing but another fraud like "MyLow" http://pesn.com/2009/05/19/9501542_Fish-line_discovered_in_Mylow-magnet-motor/  ..... plain and simple   

If "BANNING" her is not a option for some odd unknown reason, Rosemary should have all her postings "moderated" to weed out her lies and force her to some how stay on topic.


FTC
 

TK,
she is incapable of proving you're wrong and she has no supporters anymore that's why she keeps barking at you, on and on and on, the only power she has is Over Lunacy

Again you lie, plain and simple.

Not once, not ONE SINGLE TIME, have you been able to refute me with a demonstration, a checkable reference, or actual data. NEVER NOT A SINGLE TIME.

Yet I have refuted you over and over and over. You have been wrong about many things you've said, and I and others have proved it.

And your "papers" have nothing to do with science at all. You have no idea what the scientific method consists of. You have never tried to RULE OUT your "hypothesis", you have only tried to prove it. And failed miserably, by the way.

How long did it take you finally to admit that your 25.6 million Joules calculation was bogus? Do you still maintain that One Joule = One Watt Per Second? When will you retract your conclusion that was based on the incorrect calculation?

When will you admit that you lied about the circuit diagram, several times? When will you admit to the many lies in the video demonstration?

When will you admit that NOBODY is coming to your aid in support?

When will you admit that you, right now, are LYING about "not claiming overunity or COP>infinity"?

WHEN WILL YOU DO YOUR TEST? Never, that's when.

WHEN WILL YOU STOP LYING? Never, that's when.

Things she's said that aren't true: (I found so many in just this thread alone that I got tired of it before I was even halfway through.) Items in RED are direct cut-pastes from her posts.. in other words, her own words.

1. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.

No...they aren't. They seem to be 50 or perhaps even 60 amp-hours each.

2. Joules = 1 watt per second.

Er.... no. One Watt is one Joule per second. One Joule is one WattSecond. Very different and not mathematically equivalent at all.

3. So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Er... do the math. This calculation is completely wrong in at least three different ways.

4. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

A nominal "12 volt" battery of the type used by Ainslie will indicate well over 13 volts when fully charged, and will not drop below 12 volts until nearly completely DISCHARGED. So the fact that the batteries are still OVER 12 volts is actually evidence that they are substantially DISCHARGED... or they would be over 13 volts each, not 12.

5. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

Er... only if you use the bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure. Using the correct figure the battery could have performed 10 such tests without depleting its charge. Yet RA has never retracted this claim. Therefore... since she knows the 25.6 megaJoule figure is wrong.... it is a continuing and outrageous lie.



6. 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.

Read the explanation in Wiki again. One Watt is not One Joule and one Joule is not one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT interchangeable, and the WIKI explains it correctly and RA once again is distorting the reference and lying about her claim.

7. Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries.

But previously she said, "That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."

and

"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit." These statements cannot all be true... so one or more of them is a lie.

8. Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor.  Or so you said in that video.   And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR?  And WHY did you identify it as the load?  And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?

The real joke is this.  You complained that we don't take voltages across the load.  Explain this.  IF YOU DARE.


I have never once taken the voltage "across the load resistor". In fact without isolated probes or a differential voltage probe, you cannot monitor voltage across the load, because it is "high-side switched" and doesn't connect directly to the negative common ground point. I never said in the video any such thing... what I ALWAYS say is that I am monitoring the common mosfet drains, on the transistor side of the load. And neither have I ever "complained" any such thing. I have said that they are not typically showing the mosfet common drain voltage... a very different thing altogether.


9. TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements. 

This is false. I have posted many videos containing precise measurements of many quantities.

10. This is not clear.  Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330?  In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic.  You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all.  Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery?  At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal?  Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal?  If the former - then the readings should be co-incident.  If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim.  And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing?  To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output.  In which case?   On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery.  Which is a negative voltage value.  If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge.  And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit.  Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation.  I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive.  And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other.  Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results.  That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement. 

This entire post is full of lies, distortions and inaccuracies. I have shown very clearly, before this post, where and how the CH is used in the circuit. I have indeed replicated the waveform on the batteries. And that part about my load "not sufficiently inductive" is a real howler... since my load is 74 microHenry and hers is CLAIMED to be only a couple of microHenry. And there certainly is consistency in my results. I can turn the system on and make ANY of the illustrated waveforms immediately...because I understand the circuit.


11. The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude. And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.

Two at once. Clearly my battery oscillations DO have the "same amplitude", as demonstrated in several videos,  and clearly... my load resistor is 74 microHenry, which is MORE INDUCTIVE than the (unbelievable) 2.23 microHenry they claim to have used.

12.  Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery.  This results in a negative wattage.  We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.
If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit.  It's that simple.

False.
The unpublished, many times rejected draft document that RA calls a "paper" has many errors in it. The data and measurements are full of errors. RA does not show any evidence of what she claims, she shows errors in data collection, analysis and interpretation. There is no experimental support for her claims in the "papers". And I am not required to repeat her errors in order to replicate her circuit.


13. We do not claim over unity.

This is clearly false, as you have claimed overunity many times. In English, claiming that the batteries do not discharge while doing useful work is CLAIMING OVERUNITY. Applying for an Overunity Prize on an Overunity website... is claiming OVERUNITY.

That gets us up to about page 23 of this thread. There are more lies and false statements from RA yet to come.

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

Some quotes from the demo video, said by the presenter with RA standing behind him:
Quotes from the video, the unnamed presenter speaking, words in red:

1) 0:20- "The circuit diagram before you is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup"

This is false.

2) 0:30: "What we have is 5 mosfets mounted in parallel" 

This is false.

3) 1:59: "C represents the input to the gates of the mosfet" as he gestures to the board.

Another false statement. The function generator is seen to be connected to point F by the red alligator clip.

4) 2:05:  "F WOULD BE THE DRAIN, THE COMMON DRAIN..."

Rosemary has claimed that the common drain voltage isn't shown in this video, and that the GREEN trace does not represent the mosfet common drain. But it is, and it does.

5) 3:09  (stuttering a bit and mumbling) "we can see the battery voltage mumble mumble roughly sixty two volts, BEARING IN MIND we have 5 twelve volt batteries so theoretically we should have'bout sixty volts but thats.... mumble."

That's another lie, is what he's trying to say.

Of course we know that a fully charged 12 volt battery of this type should measure well over 13 volts so the stack of five should be at about 65 volts if it were fully charged. The fact that the meter indicates 62 volts isn't as much of a mystery to me as it evidently is to the presenter-- as it actually indicates that the batteries are substantially DISCHARGED.. or they would have been over 65 volts.

6) 3:53:  "AND THE GREEN of course the actual drain, drainback (mumbles) .. the the drain voltage."

Again... Ainslie has berated and castigated me several times for saying that the Green trace in this video is the common mosfet drain voltage.

Ainslie makes no corrections to the presenter's narration... and thus is responsible for the lies in the video demo.


QED: she lies and distorts my work, my data, her own data, external references, the things other people say and do... all of it. None of what she says can be trusted in any context. None of it.