Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 847813 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1230 on: March 19, 2012, 02:20:58 PM »
And for those of you who may yet be rather puzzled by all this gratuitous engagement by so many of the 'heavy weights' - with those trolls who,
historically, have managed so much damage - then here's the thing.  I put it to you that there is something that is so desirable in this technology
that these 'personalities' need to orchestrate this extraordinary attack.  Please note.  There is Glen trying to muscle the technology away from me
and into his own clutches.  There's TK who is most anxious to generate as much criticism of me as can be managed with Harti's indulgence.  And there's now even MileHigh - recruited to manage the damage that TK's doing to himself. 

It is that which is 'desirable' in this technology - that needs must be diminished.  I get the distinct impression that the actual attack is to refute
evidence of over unity itself.  Because, to date, I think our technology is the only proof of this - outside of cold fusion.  And it's that proof that
promises so much independence from our oil producers - that is actually the real threat.  Which is simply my personal opinion.  Because why else
would a rather elderly, utterly uneducated, and somewhat senile old lady - attract all this attention?  I ask you?

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1231 on: March 19, 2012, 02:34:07 PM »
And another reminder.  This time for Powercat who is on record for vociferously denying that any of our tests have ever been replicated.

I'm beginning to feel even more convinced that Rosemary is suffering from a medical condition.

For the three readers and anyone else,
this is a classic statement from Rosemary where  she twists the truth, what I have said in the past and it is on record,
is that no one on this forum has ever successfully replicated Rosemary's claim, (that's right the claim)

We all know the circuit has been replicated, but without successfully reproducing Rosemary's claim.

I could start re-posting all my previous posts where I state that the problem is with her claim, but as this thread is going along at a good rate with a very interesting debate, I will leave it for another day, unless of course Rosemary wants to retract her statement, but as she lives in denial this would seem unlikely

It's a real shame because when she's not going on about her claim, she can make a positive contribution to this community.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1232 on: March 19, 2012, 03:02:52 PM »
See how she threatens and postures? All the while making inane statements about math, crazy calculations, redefining physics definitions, and dodging the actual issues and questions and proposals. Attacking whatever she can, flailing about like someone stuck in quicksand.

Watch: when eatenbyagrue continues with his little tutorial (taking the same path and using the same conventional math that I have done several times) and finally reaches the conclusion in his own mind about Rosemary's calculations and claims... she will turn on him, as well. I've seen her do the same thing to all her former supporters. Nobody at Naked Scientists was gullible enough to fall for her garbage; they banned her early on for her nonsensical conjectures and her sloppy practices. But ever since then, she's gone through a cycle with her supporters. FuzzyTomcat is an excellent, still present example. Eatenbyagrue, be careful. She'll wind up threatening you, too, if you don't agree with her crazy math.

Slices PER pie. Miles PER hour. Joules PER second. PERcent.  Somebody tell me please... does the word "PER" have anything to do with a division operation? When I say "One Watt is equal to One Joule PER Second", is this the same as 1 W = (1 J) / ( 1 S) ? Do we not determine the POWER in Watts by taking the number of JOULES dissipated, and DIVIDING that number by the number of SECONDS over which the dissipation occurred? Yet Rosemary shows her ignorance by denying even the simple basic fact that the word "PER" denotes a division operation.

Wilful and arrogant ignorance. The resources exist for her easily to educate herself. Note that I have provided references all along for my stance and my assertions. NOBODY has to take my word for anything, you can "DO THE MATH" for yourself -- if you know how. But Rosemary's overweening arrogance prevents her from acknowledging that just maybe, she could possibly be wrong -- even in the face of ample proof that she is.
"1 Joule = 1 Watt per Second" and eatenbyagrue thinks it's just a typo or transposition, when there's ample evidence that she actually believes it is so... and has said so several times in spite of eaten's help.

Well, eatenbyagrue, carry on. We are all three of us waiting for your next session with Rosemary's arithmetic. Let me remind you: 10.3 MegaJoules in the battery pack. 25.6 MegaJoules delivered to 900 grams water in 100 minutes according to Rosemary without mentioning water loss, only "boiling at the end".  Your own calculation of less than a megaJoule to boil away a substantial part of the water, mine of a little over 2 MJ to completely boil the water away.  Under what assumptions could Rosemary's claim that "this one test alone" used more energy than was originally contained in the battery pack?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1233 on: March 19, 2012, 03:08:18 PM »
My dear powercat
I'm beginning to feel even more convinced that Rosemary is suffering from a medical condition.
I trust that you're a qualified psychiatrist?  Is it?  Or a psychologist?  And that your opinion here is based on the evidence?  Or is the defense of some historical truths to be considered lunatic.  You were directly responsible for the closure of a previous thread here.  One of many.  And you managed this by this through the simple expediency of ignoring every response I made to your allegations - and simply reposting your post. 

And your essential claim is that no-one had replicated our circuit.  Now.  NOTA BENE.  You're still referencing UTTERLY INCORRECT FACTS. 

For the three readers and anyone else,
I believed there are considerably more than 3 readers here. 

 
this is a classic statement from Rosemary where  she twists the truth, what I have said in the past and it is on record, is that no one on this forum has ever successfully replicated Rosemary's claim, (that's right the claim)
There is only one claim.  This is it.  COP>1 has been MEASURED - PROVEN - AND THEN REPLICATED.  Traditionally that's all that's required. 

We all know the circuit has been replicated, but without successfully reproducing Rosemary's claim.
Still wrong.  The circuit was replicated.  But Glen Lettenmaier now REFUTES THAT REPLICATION.  If you are concerned about the level of reproducibility - then rest easy.  A fraction of COP greater than 1 is all that's required.

Guys it's a mater of some considerable concern to me that there are still those of you who are not aware of this.  By rights we should all be celebrating and 'moving on' - to new and better technologies - this latest of our's being just one small example.

Cat - you're objects here are absolutely NOT in the interests of over unity.  And I suspect that they never have been.  Especially when I see that sad little propagandising reference to just 3 readers of this thread.  And you have the temerity to advise everyone that I am deluded?  I think you're pointing to the wrong person.

Rosemary

No changes.  Just deleted part of the referenced quote.  Also - I couldn't preview because Harti's system went into freeze mode - yet again.  But it seems to have got unstuck - AT LAST.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 05:23:36 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1234 on: March 19, 2012, 04:34:20 PM »
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

I will help you out TK, this has gone on way past ridiculous! Now do you see why I was reluctant to do the math ? You cannot argue facts with someone whose very purpose for being depends on denial and distortion of those facts. Anyway, what does “per” mean ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_%28mathematics%29

“Another kind of fraction is the percentage (Latin per centum meaning "per hundred", represented by the symbol %), in which the implied denominator is always 100. Thus, 75% means 75/100. Related concepts are the permille, with 1000 as implied denominator, and the more general parts-per notation, as in 75 parts per million, meaning that the proportion is 75/1,000,000.”

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per

Preposition
per
1. for each
Admission is £10 per person.
2. to each, in each (used in expressing ratios of units)
miles per gallon
beats per minute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-unit_system

In the power transmission field of electrical engineering, a per-unit system is the expression of system quantities as fractions of a defined base unit quantity. Calculations are simplified because quantities expressed as per-unit are the same regardless of the voltage level. Similar types of apparatus will have impedances, voltage drops and losses that are the same when expressed as a per-unit fraction of the equipment rating, even if the unit size varies widely. Conversion of per-unit quantities to volts, ohms, or amperes requires a knowledge of the base that the per-unit quantities were referenced to.
A per-unit system provides units for power, voltage, current, impedance, and admittance. Only two of these are independent, usually power and voltage. All quantities are specified as multiples of selected base values. For example, the base power might be the rated power of a transformer, or perhaps an arbitrarily selected power which makes power quantities in the system more convenient. The base voltage might be the nominal voltage of a bus. Different types of quantities are labeled with the same symbol (pu); it should be clear from context whether the quantity is a voltage, current, etc.
Per-unit is used primarily in power flow studies; however, because parameters of transformers and machines (electric motors and electrical generators) are often specified in terms of per-unit, it is important for all power engineers to be familiar with the concept.

http://www.themathpage.com/arith/division.htm

3
What is a rate?

A rate is a relationship between units of different kinds. Dollars per person. Miles per hour. And so on.

A rate is typically indicated by per, which means for each or in each.
In a calculation, per always indicates division.
Example 7. In a certain country, the unit of currency is the corona. With $11 Ana was able to buy 55 coronas. What was the rate of exchange? That is, how many coronas per dollar?
Solution. Follow the sequence: coronas per dollar: 55 ÷ 11 = 5.
The rate of exchange was 5 coronas per dollar.
Any rate problem -- dollars per person, miles per hour -- is equivalent to dividing a number into equal parts. (In this example, we divided 55 coronas into 11 equal parts; each part being worth 1 dollar.) Rate problems can therefore can be analyzed in the same manner as the Example above. To preserve the meaning of division, we must divide units of the same kind, even though that is not how it appears.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141049458,00.html?strSrchSql=maths/Maths_Doesn%27t_Suck_Danica_McKellar

Maths Doesn't Suck
How to survive year 6 through year 9 maths without losing your mind or breaking a nail
by Danica McKellar

RM :)

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1235 on: March 19, 2012, 04:36:46 PM »
Well, eatenbyagrue, carry on. We are all three of us waiting for your next session with Rosemary's arithmetic. Let me remind you: 10.3 MegaJoules in the battery pack. 25.6 MegaJoules delivered to 900 grams water in 100 minutes according to Rosemary without mentioning water loss, only "boiling at the end".  Your own calculation of less than a megaJoule to boil away a substantial part of the water, mine of a little over 2 MJ to completely boil the water away.  Under what assumptions could Rosemary's claim that "this one test alone" used more energy than was originally contained in the battery pack?


So what if she is a little off on the math.  Why do you guys make such a big deal with these minor quibbles.  Look, the circuit is open source.  Rosemary does not hold a patent on it.  So the circuit belongs to everyone, to all of us.  So when you attack the circuit, you are attacking something that belongs to you too.


Instead of being so negative, just fix what you think Rosemary has done wrong, and then this circuit will work for all of us.


Also, as an aside, I am a lawyer in Houston, Texas and am licensed to practice in all the courts in this state, and I will gladly defend Rosemary from all suits from you.  Also, I cannot fathom what cause of action you might possibly have.  Libel of your anonymous online personality?  Please!

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1236 on: March 19, 2012, 05:56:49 PM »
Hello eatenbyagrue,

I see that you're still satisfied that my energy conclusions are wrong.  As it's you - I'm not prepared to argue this.  LOL.  I'll just quietly hold to my own opinion and reserve all further mention of it.  One day, hopefully, someone will explain it in the context of the analogy that I used related to oxtail soup.  I have absolutely no desire to quarrel with my few supporters. And the claim is extraneous to our paper so is of absolutely no material relevance to anything than my own 'uninformed' opinion - backed up in discussion with an expert in electrical engineering.  When I finally find a power engineer - which I hope to do tomorrow - then I'll hopefully have this matter explained to me.  Until then - it's best kept off forum.

Meanwhile - thank you for your intention to defend me against an action by TK.   In fact, I was rather hoping to bring an action here.  I'm not sure that this can happen - unfortunately - until he discloses his name - at least.  And I believe he actually lives in Canada.  But am open to correction.  He'll need to own up to his actual identity.  And I'm not sure how vulnerable my already vulnerable position here would be if I solicited legal advice from a member.  The only thing I know is that any such action would be of riveting interest to a great many people.  The more so as it would be an opportunity to bring our apparatus to Court as a required exhibit.  And that would then give one the opportunity to get it demonstrated publicly.  The concept of all that publicity is intensely alluring.  So yes.  I am more than ready to do something about this.  And I have, in fact, put money aside to deal with this should the opportunity arise.  Any advices would be gratefully appreciated but I suspect it's more appropriate off forum. 

Meanwhile - my mission is to get it generally known that the unity barrier has been breached.  And not only have we done this.  There have been many such.  It's just that the results are challenged on the thinnest grounds - or ridiculed - or both.  So.  The bottom line is that forums are NOT the best medium.  But in the absence of others - then it's better than nothing.  I'm hoping our papers will be published soon.  But frankly, I'll use whatever means are available to 'spread the word'.  Challenging Poynty for prizes is one way.  Court is another.  Publication a third.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1237 on: March 19, 2012, 07:11:11 PM »

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

Rosemary ..... your saying your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publications that the content are 100% TRUE and Factual.YES   or   NO !!!

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


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MY ATTORNEY AND I NEED THIS LAST BIT OF INFORMATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LIBEL SUIT AGAINST YOU.
YOUR TIME IS RUNNING OUT !!!


 :P

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1238 on: March 19, 2012, 07:58:32 PM »

So what if she is a little off on the math.  Why do you guys make such a big deal with these minor quibbles.
Her math error leads her to the conclusion that the test used more energy than the battery contained. This is the root of her entire overunity claim. As YOU have shown, when the math is done properly, the amount of energy is NOWHERE NEAR the battery's total capacity. Therefore.... the claim that it is is either a MISTAKE that needs to be corrected, or a LIE, seeking to claim a monetary prize. You are a lawyer? Did you know that the TRUTH is a defense against libel? And making false claims in the attempt to gain a monetary award is ... well, I'm sure you've got a legal dictionary at hand.
Quote
Look, the circuit is open source.  Rosemary does not hold a patent on it.  So the circuit belongs to everyone, to all of us.  So when you attack the circuit, you are attacking something that belongs to you too.


Instead of being so negative, just fix what you think Rosemary has done wrong, and then this circuit will work for all of us.


Also, as an aside, I am a lawyer in Houston, Texas and am licensed to practice in all the courts in this state, and I will gladly defend Rosemary from all suits from you.  Also, I cannot fathom what cause of action you might possibly have.  Libel of your anonymous online personality?  Please!

Let me point out that you've got it backwards. Rosemary is threatening ME, not the other way around. And I would be glad if you can point out ANYTHING I'VE SAID concerning her claims in that quote that isn't the truth. Then please point out the things that Rosemary said in that quote--- applying for a monetary prize remember... that aren't true.

Now, on another blog, I read that Rosemary has actually made some kind of death threat against me. I can't find it -- maybe it's in another of her blogs somewhere... but I do not doubt that she might do such a thing.

What say ye to that, Counselor?

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1239 on: March 19, 2012, 08:10:51 PM »
Now, on another blog, I read that Rosemary has actually made some kind of death threat against me. I can't find it -- maybe it's in another of her blogs somewhere... but I do not doubt that she might do such a thing.

What say ye to that, Counselor?


It is true that the truth is a defense to any libel or slander claim.  And death threats, from a nice lady in South Africa, come on, you could not possibly take that seriously?  I am sure she was using hyperbole.


It heartens me to know that you do not plan on suing our good friend Rosemary.  Anyway, a lawsuit between people in different countries is usually a pipe dream.


And yes, due to the math I have done, it appears more testing might be in order, but I really think Rosemary is onto something here.  I just wish you guys would give her more of a chance to pursue her work without this constant harassment.  Fuzzy appears particularly a strange one, constantly berating the forum with his incessant requests for a live feed.


None of you guys have contracted with Rosemary or have given her any money to do this work, or have really contributed effort, so what are all these expectations?  We are all on the same side here, so just let her do her thing.  She just might surprise you!






Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1240 on: March 19, 2012, 08:11:15 PM »
FuzzyTomcat has posted the two circuit diagrams. I now understand something I didn't fully get before. The first diagram showing one mosfet, is actually supposed to represent  a stack of mosfets in strict parallel, five I think.
But if you take ONE of them and ... perhaps inadvertently due to layout issues... simply reverse it, put it upside down,  or wire it from underneath (mirror image).... the circuit instantly morphs into the second circuit, with gate to source,  and drains together.
I didn't fully understand this "serendipitous mistake" earlier, but I do now. And it's sinking in. As are the implications thereof.

Now, I see that .99 and Rosemary are discussing testing with three 12 volt batteries of low amp-hour capacity, instead of 6 batteries of 40 A-H capacity. I'm glad that they seem to agree that the testing can be done at 36 volts, and that lower capacity batteries might be suitable... because I just went out and bought 3 brand new 12-volt, 5 A-H sealed lead-acid batteries, and they are charging up on my automatic regulated charger right now.

Ooops... now I've made it impossible for Rosemary's and .99's test to work with 36 volts... since that's what I'm using. Oh, well....  sorry about that. Careful, though... I'm also using the IRFPG50 mosfet, and we wouldn't want to disqualify THAT item, just because "TK uses it", would we.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1241 on: March 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM »
@eatenbyagrue:
You still seem to think that "all of us guys" are as new to the Ainslie affair as you are, and that we've contributed nothing but words to the affray.

I ask you (again, I believe) to go to my YouTube channel and search my videos for the terms "Electric OU" and "Ainslie". Please review the videos and explanations in chronological order, starting from the first ones done years ago. Unfortunately, many of the forum threads that contained discussions concerning these videos have been removed or censored or otherwise edited-- I refer specifically to the Panacea University - Ashtweth - Aaron (qiman) threads. However, I think you will be able to "catch the drift" of the issues discussed. Ashtweth and Aaron were among Rosemary's early and enthusiastic supporters.... until the inevitable happened, and she got herself banned from even that forum.  That's about the time FuzzyTomcat got involved, also.

Then there's the full story of her IEEE journal submissions...but don't take my word for it NOR HERS. Look it up for yourself.

ETA: I almost forgot.... but since you mentioned the word "PATENT".... did you know Rosemary claimed for a long time to have a patent on the earlier, COP>17 circuit and process? It took a lot of struggling with her semantics issues to get her to acknowledge in public that having a lapsed, ungranted WPTO patent APPLICATION isn't quite the same thing as holding a "patent".

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1242 on: March 19, 2012, 08:25:44 PM »
@eatenbyagrue:
You still seem to think that "all of us guys" are as new to the Ainslie affair as you are, and that we've contributed nothing but words to the affray.

I ask you (again, I believe) to go to my YouTube channel and search my videos for the terms "Electric OU" and "Ainslie". Please review the videos and explanations in chronological order, starting from the first ones done years ago. Unfortunately, many of the forum threads that contained discussions concerning these videos have been removed or censored or otherwise edited-- I refer specifically to the Panacea University - Ashtweth - Aaron (qiman) threads. However, I think you will be able to "catch the drift" of the issues discussed. Ashtweth and Aaron were among Rosemary's early and enthusiastic supporters.... until the inevitable happened, and she got herself banned from even that forum.  That's about the time FuzzyTomcat got involved, also.

Then there's the full story of her IEEE journal submissions...but don't take my word for it NOR HERS. Look it up for yourself.


Thank you for the links, I will check them out!

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1243 on: March 19, 2012, 08:51:16 PM »
Well,they weren't really links, but you're welcome anyway.

Now.. this is a link.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27577.msg291529#msg291529
Note the date of the post. Browse around in that forum for posts by Rosemary. I'm sure you'll find it entertaining.
Here's another one:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg290447#msg290447
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg256896#msg256896  "I patented it, and then allowed it to lapse..."

Ahh.. a blast from the past. TK, .99 and MileHigh... together again with Rosemary, in 2009.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27577

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1244 on: March 19, 2012, 09:41:48 PM »
Guests and Members

Some of the most damning slanderous unfounded accusations from Rosemary against me is about her "SCRIBD" paper and my THEFT and REMOVAL of her "SCRIBD" document.


"OUR" REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF ROSEMARY"S "SCRIBD" DOCUMENT -

1) The document Rosemary filed at SCRIBD was water marked "FOR PEER REVIEW" from the IEEE and with the entire REMOVAL of all AUTHORS names on the document.

2) The visit from Rosemary to Professor DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn  (Head) Centre for Distributed Power & Electronic Systems Faculty of Engineering "Cape Peninsula University of Technology

    (CUPT) with her "SCRIBD" document water marked "FOR PEER REVIEW" without any AUTHORS names on it giving a COPY to DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn , as SOLELY her own work. 


Please find attached 100% verifiable e-mail correspondence -

1) Complete set of "SCRIBD" e-mails transcripts - ( Scribd_07-10_02.pdf / Scribd_07-10_03.pdf )
   
2) Inquiry responce from Professor DR Mohamed Tariq Kahn ( CUPT ) - ( Dr_Kahn_01.pdf )


 :P