Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[powercat]

And since I'm on a roll - let me give a synopsis of Poynty's argument.  Here it is.  The simulation shows an INFINITE COP ONLY if we factor in the connecting leads.  Without those leads there is NO  INFINITE COP.

And TK's argument - something on the lines of Fuzzy - HE could not achieve COP > ANYTHING AT ALL - therefore there is no COP>ANYTHING AT ALL. 

And MileHihigh's argument - his personal BEST.  How can we CLAIM results that are greater COP 1 when standard science does not ALLOW THIS.  Therefore are we wrong.

And so it goes.  All these thousands of posts and always that same argument.  I personally think that these posts eventually reach a certain critical mass and then they JUST COLLAPSE.  And I think we're well over that point.

I'm preparing a detailed account of the absurdities of all these arguments and will post in on my blogspot.  Meanwhile I really need to say goodbye to you all.  I'll post here again when we've finished that paper.

Rosemary

I omitted CAT's reasons.  He thinks that Fuzzy is a good guy and that anything Fuzzy claims is just perfectly OK.  And as for MaMags.  He doesn't think.  Ever.  He just echoes everyone else - not unlike my little 2 year old granddaughter who echos her own big sister.  It would be rather sweet if it weren't also so utterly destructive.

Anyway.  Bye for now.  I've got another paper to prepare before we submit the one that's now finished.

You will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.

You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has.

Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38

Do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.

A big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.

Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".

The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.

[Bubba1]

Joules = 1 watt per second.

Still wrong

So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules

Agreed, but by multiplying by 90, you are saying that it took 1 minute to raise that 900 grams of water 66 degrees Celsius and kept providing that same amount of energy every minute for 90 minutes, which would equal 22,346,280 joules.  Is that what you did?  How long did it take the 900 grams of water to increase in temperature 66 degrees C?  If we knew that, the power could be worked out.  As it is, raising 900 grams of water 66 degrees C in one minute would be 248,292 joules / 60 seconds = 4138.2 watts, still a hefty figure.  Again, this is important: how long did it take the 900 grams of water to increase in temperature 66 degrees C?

[WilbyInebriated]

Still wrong

from the wiki...

One joule can also be defined as:

    * The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt, or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt.
    * The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour). This relationship can be used to define the watt.

[Bubba1]

from the wiki...

One joule can also be defined as:

    * The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt, or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt.
    * The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour). This relationship can be used to define the watt.

I can't tell if you agree with me or not.
Rosemary said Joules = 1 watt per second.
Wiki says Joules = Watt-seconds.
They are not the same thing.
Watts per second = watts divided by seconds.
Watt-seconds = watts times seconds
One way to make sense of the words "watts per second" is if at the beginning of a second you were consuming 1 watt.  At the beginning of the next second, you were consuming 2 watts.  That would be a change of 1 watt per second.

[evolvingape]

I can't tell if you agree with me or not.

This is Wilby attacking your logic here with logical fallacies, you can safely say if your disagreeing with Rose then he is not agreeing with you.

Shortly he will ask you how much energy EXACTLY is contained in a battery, when you cannot answer him (because nobody knows) he will not say anything but will have implied that because you cannot answer that simple question everything else you say has no merit.

I expect him to change tack soon as the "energy in the battery" routine is getting old and people are catching on... maybe something like "what happened before the big bang?" would be more appropiate, or perhaps, "what did God have for breakfast last Thursday?".



RM