another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

You need to read more to understand that this situation has been going on for years and there are other threads and other forums that you probably haven't even seen, tens of thousands of posts, all leading to one conclusion that this circuit does not work as claimed.

I know you are new here and there is a lot of information to take in so you probably missed this post.

But.. .but... Powercat... that sounds like you don't believe in Rosemary's claim.

I wonder why she says this then:

Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity was, in fact breached.  And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this.

in post # 1249 in this thread.

[TinselKoala]

You might want to have a doctor check that out. Does that happen all the time? There just may be one of those new fangled medications that will fix ya right up there in a jiffy.
No, No. Excuse me.  Now Shush   Im working.

Mags

Too busy to answer the direct, polite question, I see. That's nice of you.


Now... I have already achieved overunity with that circuit.

Using Rosemary's oxtail soup example... See that light bulb filament glowing? That's a 25 Watt bulb, there, but it's not very bright, so let's just call it ten Watts. 36 volts from the battery, 0.27 amps carried by the mosfet, ten Watts. Right so far? Now it's been running like that for over four hours, nearly five now, but let's just call it four hours. So... by Rosemary's math example -- approved by her academics, remember -- of the oxtail soup.... that's 36 volts times 0.27 amps times 60 seconds times 60 minutes times 4 hours, or  a staggering 139968 Watts or , since one Watt = one Joule (the terms are interchangeable according to Rosemary) nearly 140 thousand Joules .  That's what I'd have to pay for on my electric bill if I'd used the line. According to Rosemary's Oxtail Soup example, of course.
Now my batteries contain only 36 x 5 x 60 x 60 = 64800 Joules when fully charged. (Oh... am I a tad out there? Never mind.)
"SO. DO THE MATH" (tm Rosemary Ainslie).
In that one test alone, I far exceeded the battery capacity. Therefore... I have achieved OVERUNITY, by the very same means that Rosemary Ainslie has.

Refute me if you dare.

In post # 1165 she computes thusly:

Let's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms.  The source voltage is 220 volts.  The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you.  While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.

And earlier she explained,

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

And of course there are similar proofs of every step of my own calculation as being done the same way Rosemary does it. And I have been unable to measure any drawdown of the batteries... they are STILL well over 12 volts each. Over 12.7 volts each, in fact... therefore they are still fully charged.

Therefore, and by the same logic that she uses, I have achieved overunity performance already with my OWN circuit... which coincidentally happens to be the same as what Fuzzy posted and claimed was Rosemary's.

THANKS !! I'll be applying for the prizes now, please.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here's a repost for Poynty Point as this has again fallen off the page without an answer

Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1    We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2    We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts. 
3    On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4    We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5    We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6    We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7    Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
     This will represent the control setting.

9    We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10  To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
      This will represent the experimental setting

11  We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12  We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply. 
13  The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
      This will represent the control test

14  We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
      This will represent the experiment.

15  We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16  We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17  We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18  We will then rerun those tests
19  This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
      Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And this on the conditions
CONDITIONS

Just for general discussion.  Here's what's proposed

.  That the protocols are approved by not less than 2 academics as unequivocal proof of claim
.  That all data is measured continuously through appropriate data loggers
.  That both tests are continuously streamed 'on line' for public verification of results
.  That there is sufficient continuous supervision of these results to ensure that there is no 'tampering'.
.  This in any event should be evident in the data logger and the filming of the experiments
.  That the function generator is not grounded

Add to this if anything occurs to you Poynty.

Kindest regards
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys - regarding Powercat's post.  In its own way it's gold.  He draws the distinction between what Glen Lettenmaier's test managed and our
own.  Not an inconsiderable difference.  Glen only managed COP>6 (reduced by Harvey Gramm to 4) and we managed COP>17 as detailed in our
Quantum paper.  I think he's trying to imply that our own claim was bogus.  Fortunately our own claim was actually and openly accredited by
SASOL (SA), ABB Research (NC - USA) BP (SA), Power Engineers (SA) (part of the Alstom Group), SPESCOM (SA) and many, many more smaller
firms.  Those listed are also listed on our Stock Exchange.  They gave us their permission - in writing - to append their names as accreditors.
And SASOL went further and offered Professor Gaunt at UCT - a bursary award - to take this study further.  Unfortunately Professor Gaunt
'declined' that offer. 

Which goes to show.  That breach of unity - that MileHigh is rather anxious you all dismiss - out of hand - is also associated with multiple
accreditations from real experts.  Interestingly, our latest claim has nothing at all to do with the battery performance.  It simply concentrates on
the anomalous negative wattage that's measured from the battery.  This implies much that relates to the thesis.  And the focus of that paper is
this.  We describe a series of tests that show different aspects of this anomaly.  And then in the second paper we reconcile the results in terms of
the thesis.  And the thesis proposes nothing that contradicts known physics.  It only suggests that current flow has a dual charge potential
depending on the direction of flow and the charge presented in terms of that justification.

Hope that makes it clearer,
Kindest again
Rosemary

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.