To the best of my knowledge 'per' NEVER means divide by.  Not even in scientific terms.  Just look up the dictionary definition.  But nor am I saying that you shouldn't use the term in another context.  It's just that Wiki doesn't, is all.  But there you go.  Not everyone allows themselves the license to redefine words in common usage.  And far be it from me to propose that you follow suit.

Rosie

But you redefine words here all the time. One Joule = One Watt PER Second, remember?

http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/Kilometer_per_hour.html
http://www.amathsdictionaryforkids.com/dictionary.html and select the Pp and then "percent". PER cent.
And of course your favorite reference which you won't understand (but others will, including the Judge of us all):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_%28mathematics%29

Is that enough to convince you that "Per" denotes a division operation, and when we say a Watt is a Joule PER second we mean to divide the number of Joules by the number of seconds to get the answer in Watts?

Of course it isn't, because YOU redefine common terms to suit your fantasies all the time.

TK - when you answer these posts then I'll engage in any discussion you require.  Until then I'm afraid your arguments are entirely discredited as
is your internet personality.  And I will ignore all further comments related to the topic under discussion.

Go ahead and use your super sleuthing powers. You said that when you find out who I am you will do something to me. That's a threat, and I'm
not going to walk into it; you're going to have to work for it.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 07:05:21 AM

No TK - that's neither my style nor my
competence.  But assuming that you stand by your allegations then I would have thought you'd also be prepared to stand by your libel - in it's
manifold appearances.  But clearly you require this internet personality to hide behind any need for accountability.  In which case you can say
what you want and in any manner that you require and forever be unaccountable.  Which - in my book - is an abuse of one's internet identity.
Unfortunately it rather diminishes anything at all that you claim.  Your statements are thereby discounted - in their entirety.  You are simply
abusing this anonymity to promote an agenda.  It is not something that you care that much about that you'll defend it in Court.  Therefore which
of the two of us occupies the moral highground?  I make no secret of my name.

Rosemary Ainslie

Rosemary,

So you are a coward and a fraud ..... and you still say your device has a COP>INFINITY ....

I WANT TO BROADCAST IT "LIVE" ON MY WEB SITE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE !!!

ROSEMARY ARE YOU a FRAUD or COWARD or BOTH !!!


http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org


Fuzzy
 
*meow*

"What's wrong with you?"
Are you sure you're asking that of the right person?

It sounds to me like fuzzytomcat's offering the use of his website and bandwidth to stream a test of Rosemary's device to the world.
What is wrong with YOU, that you see something wrong with that?

And by the most liberal assumptions possible about "salt water" and boiling off quantities, you have still managed to come up with a Joule value that is NOT in excess of the battery's original capacity at all. Haven't you. Is there any way at all you can tweak your assumptions further, so that you can get somewhere near the 10.3 megaJoules contained in the battery at full charge? How about if the container the water was in melted down totally? Would that do it?

And note how slippery things are: the numbers and the way the test was done have changed. Now it's the resistor that was measured, not the water at all.

Guys, when the time comes I've already undertaken this... we'll do our own live broadcast of those tests.  Not sure how to yet.  But I'll undertake
to go through this learning curve.  I have no intention - whatsoever - of engaging with Glen Lettenmaier on any basis at all.  As I've tried to
point out he has stolen our paper as his own property and yet denies the claims in that paper.  I don't think one needs the IQ of your average
rocket scientist to work out that any engagement on any basis at all would be somewhat prejudicial.

I'm rather amused to see that TK thinks his proposal is reasonable.  Golly.  Actually guys - I've been rolling with laughter.  This is all rather
comical - if somewhat sad.  We see a self confessed scoundrel backing Glen Lettenmaier who - correspondingly - claims he is as innocent as the
driven snow.  And so it goes.  Hopefully before the day is out I'll be able to talk at length with Poynty - who's got some points that need
addressing and that eatenbyagrue will explain what's wrong with my power analysis.  I'm reasonably confident that unlike our trolls, they both of
them have something of value to contribute. 
 
As ever,
Rosemary

added
And I left out the best part.  MileHigh was re-instated after having been banned for the last year or two - in order to come to TK's defense - and
to advise us all that TK's not the scoundrel that TK himself acknowledges in an extraordinary gesture of candour.  We're advised that TK's a
'good guy' I think were his words.  It really is hysterically comical.  TK so openly candid and MileHigh - not so much.  This one's for you MileHigh.
LOL 

Really nasty trolls out and about today. In one ear and out the other rosie that's the best way to deal with rude crude people.

"And I will ignore all further comments related to the topic under discussion."

You have finally said something that is probably true.

You can fire off all the ad hominem arguments you like. I'll stipulate that I'm a slimeball lowlife scumsucker, if you like, but that has NOTHING at
ALL to do with your claim of 25.6 megaJoules and that that demonstration used more than the battery's capacity.

I could be Santa Claus, Bill Gates, or Satan himself, incarnate, and it wouldn't matter at all, you would still be laughably and totally wrong. And
everybody reading here knows it.

Where are your defenders?

Guys I've copied this so that it can be readable.  Fuzzy is doing his trick with that 'falling off the page' bit.  You must all make allowances.  He is
dyslexic and can hardly write let alone read.  Which is why he relies on pasting over copious and irrelevant posts in his efforts to distance my
comments from your focus.  Sadly we're dealing with an infantile mind that relies on his rather colourful tantrums to communicate anything
at all.  His dyslexia is not his fault.  Some of my best friends are dyslexic.  What is his fault is that he is so far without professional principle that
he cannot engage in any level of professional conduct.  I personally would be rather ashamed if anyone of his type would ever approve of me.
 
Thankfully they seem to rather dislike me.  Which is a matter of some considerable personal pride.  I am only sorry that it is not only myself who
is irritated by these constant interventions.  It seems that war is war.  And Wilby was right to not engage, which he described as this 'Vietrnam'.
Hopefully between the 'snipes' and covert attacks I can yet reference what matters.  I'm only sorry - yet again - that I seem to induce this level
of aggression.  It escalates every time the topic becomes interesting.  Go figger.  And I have no option - but to engage.  But I'll try and minimise
the comment in the hopes of somehow salvaging the object of this topic.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And another reminder.  This time for Powercat who is on record for vociferously denying that any of our tests have ever been replicated.  Kindly
note.  Glen Lettenmaier's own Scribd publication of my own paper claims categorically that he has 'replicated' our earlier COP>17 test. He did not
quite manage COP>17.  But he certainly achieved COP>1.  And in the context of over unity - then that, in itself - is actually enough.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

The opening paragraph stipulates

The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonating
frequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Results
indicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an
alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...
The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest)
published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical
magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the
experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate
the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was
considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating
to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.

Here's the measure of the man Guys.  I believe Powercat is most anxious that you believe there has never been a replication.  So odd.  When
Glen Lettenmaier himself claims this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary