another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[powercat]

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.

[TinselKoala]

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?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

[evolvingape]

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