another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Rosemary,

Please review the following comments on your complete proposed protocol. I hope you don't mind, but I've numbered your points for easier reference.

1) We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.

OK.

2) Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.

I agree, the lower the rating, the less time will be required to complete the tests. As a side note, I have no preference as to battery type.

3) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source. This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output.

I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

4) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.

I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

5) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.

OK.

6) We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously.

OK.

7) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.

Please, for the record, state what your claim is for this battery drawdown test.

Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

8] We then recharge all those batteries.

OK.

9) We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.

OK.

10) We re-run those tests. This to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

OK.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - your points 2 - 3 and 4 DEFINITELY need more clarity.  If you can manage this feel free.  I think you know what I'm inferring.  Else I'll tackle it on Sunday.  It'll take more time and energy than I can manage at the moment.

Regarding the battery draw down test.  That also needs more clarity.  It relates to the the proposed current path that I've tried to detail in an earlier post here and that was also rather overlooked.  I'm not 'punting' the thesis.  I'm trying to show you all WHY I insist ONLY on the anomaly that relates to our measurements.  Please read it Poynty.  But I need to elaborate on it.  But also.  I think I've finally found a way of explaining this that you guys - electronic experts - can understand.  I hope so.  It seems somewhat clearer when I analyse it like that.  Let me knw.  We absolutely CANNOT claim that the battery lasts forever.  Yet that's CERTAINLY what the measurements state.  What we know is that the batteries outlast a control.  Significantly.  Which is why I'm happy to assert a partial loss.  And unable to claim a complete gain as required - apparently - by those measurements.

At least READ those posts of mine.  I'm relying on this.  Of all our contributors - only you and PhiChaser are likely to be interested.

Regards
Rosie

[TinselKoala]

@AbbaRue: It's nice to see that you got the point of the video demonstration. I hope you watched _all_ the videos, and that you have sufficient electronic knowledge to understand what the significance is of inserting a capacitor in series with the FG. I suggest that Rosemary try this on her system, since we know that it won't affect the signal generator's switching of the mosfets, it will only interrupt the DC current path through the FG.
@Mags: Did you watch _all_ the videos? It doesn't sound like it.
You are making statements like you are flailing around looking for something to grip onto. The circuit is exactly as I show in the diagram in the later videos, the monitoring points are clearly indicated, and the reduced battery voltage makes the FG's contribution obvious, whereas the offset needed to display the contribution on Rosemary's scope traces hides what is really happening unless you look very closely at the channel offset values on the screenshots.


And I find it completely hilarious that Rosemary wants somebody to withdraw or retract something, when SHE HERSELF has STILL NOT RETRACTED THE CLAIMS made in the following quote:

We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  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.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

I also find it completely hilarious that NOBODY, or at least nobody who is talking, who has ACTUALLY BUILT and TESTED, or even rigorously simulated, Rosemary's various circuits, has been able to reproduce her "overunity" claims, even while reproducing some of her measurements. And the people who support her currently have not built her devices nor tested anything like them, evidently. And the people  who have supported her in the past, like Astweth, like Harvey, even like Glen..... no longer support her claims.

Why is that, I wonder?

(Not really. It's because her claims are bogus.)

[Magluvin]

And may I add this. 

This post of yours Poynty Point is entirely COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.  IF you have any concerns at all SHARE THEM.  Do not try and put my competence at test.  It is tiresome and insulting.  We are not here to 'dance to your tune'.  We're here to discuss and engage.  Nothing else.  I thought we'd agreed to OSTENSIBLY drop our 'agendas' in the interest of furthering this discussion.  Therefore?  Kindly keep your comments appropriate.

Rosie Posie,

He was letting you make the decision as to what batteries can be used. I think it is a courtesy to you from him.  But if you havent tried these 2ah batteries yet Rose, then we cannot assume that the circuit will work to your specifications for sure.

It is your call really.  Its your baby.

But what if it doesnt work for them with these 2ah batteries? Then we are at square one, with your approval be satisfied with the results by suggesting that the batteries will work. that will be the story afterwards.

Mags

[TinselKoala]

@AbbaRue: you speak of scope probe leads picking up noise and showing that instead of circuit behavior. You must then explain why my circuit doesn't oscillate when I change to the mosfets that require more gate charge to switch, and you really should look at the photos of Rosemary's circuit as tested that made those scope shots of hers. Stray oscillations due to rat's nest wiring? Any circuit designer will warn you about that in a mosfet amplifier..... especially with casually parallelled mosfets.