another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Let me state my position clearly.

1. Rosemary Ainslie over the years has claimed that at least 4 (slightly) different circuits using ordinary MOSFETS switched in a manner detailed in the MOSFET's data sheet.... all produce overunity performance, from COP>17 (her early claim) to COP = INFINITY in her latest claim, along with battery recharging and consuming NO power from the batteries.

2. The data and evidence that she has provided are inadequate to support such a grand claim.

3. The data and evidence that she has provided... the RAW DATA (most of it) ... CAN INDEED be duplicated, on demand, both in standard circuit model simulations as .99 and others have shown, and in real circuitry, as FuzzyTomcat and others have shown, including myself. These reports have been published, posted, referenced out the wazoo.

4. Rosemary has shown repeatedly that she does not understand basic arithmetic, algebra, nor does she have a grasp of the basic concepts of the calculus. She consistently and constantly confuses units of energy and power, showing that she does not understand the difference ("`1 Watt = 1 Joule, the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE" she says).

5. The conclusion that Ainslie's circuits perform in any manner other than the perfectly ordinary, is a result of her incorrect interpretation of the raw data, including but not limited to arithmetic errors, algebra errors, and improper data collection. When the data AS SHE PRESENTS IT is analyzed correctly, no indication of any "overunity" or battery charging performance due to her circuit can be found. This part of the story has been "replicated" over and over, by everyone with the knowledge and skill and apparatus to TEST FOR THEMSELVES.

6. No credible replication of her overunity claim exists, anywhere.

7. The present discussion illustrates each of my points above, in spades.


@eatenbyagrue: You no doubt have gotten caught up a little bit by now. I ask you therefore, Counselor: have you been able to find anything in what I've said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

Have you been able to find anything that Rosemary has said, posted or linked to that is incorrect, untrue, or not supported by external independent evidence?

(edited for typos and grammar)

[powercat]

Hello powercat

Let me see if I can clarify this - as you seem to be having some difficulties.  Your original statement is here.From where I sit you're unequivocally stating that no-one has replicated our claim?  Is that right?  Well.  Here's the puzzle.  Glen Lettenmaier has published our paper on his scribd account where he categorically states that he has replicated our claim.  Here's the link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems  And here's a direct transcript from that paper.


Regards,
Rosie Pose.

How many times Rosemary, time for a repost    @Fuzzy Rosemary is still not understanding you.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"

May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.

[TinselKoala]

The only one who patently could not get that oscillation is our TK.  But he denies this.  It's just he never showed us an example of it.  Perhaps he'll oblige us - one day.

Again, Ainslie lies.

In her first circuit, the "random aperiodic hartley oscillations" were as a result of a combination of poor circuit construction, groundloops, but mostly "oscilloscope abuse", back when she didn't know the first thing about quantitative use of the oscilloscope, and thought it was cool to display an uninterpretable comb with aliasing and false triggering instead of an actual trace.
In addition, her 555 timer circuit abused the timer by driving it and powering it incorrectly, so it put out a distorted signal to her mosfet gate.

The oscillations in the present circuit(s) are, as OTHER PEOPLE than I have explained, a result of feedback and groundloops, and even though my circuit may be a bit different, the oscillations are the same and come from the same cause. Her circuit will perform the same WITH OR WITHOUT these magic oscillations, I conjecture. PROVE ME WRONG, please.

(ETA: Actually, in the first circuit, I think the mosfet  could be driven to saturation by the oscillations superposed on the gate signal and so could have simply acted like a small value resistor in a straight DC circuit. )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIALHiRL4PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcG1dAsrdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mRVej2cE_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY
(from 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRYEdJB6bVg
(from last week)

[TinselKoala]

Hello powercat

Let me see if I can clarify this - as you seem to be having some difficulties.  .....
Regards,
Rosie Pose.

Everybody seems to be having some difficulties, Rosemary.... everyone but you. You have no difficulties...

You are indeed the Red Queen in your own Wonderland, where words mean whatever you want them to mean and you already know everything there is to know about what happens in your Wonderland.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Powercat

I am very well aware of Glen's rather confusing stand on this. AGAIN.  If he no longer supports the evidence then he needs must withdraw that scribd publication.  He cannot both deny a replication and claim it.  That is not only confusing - but it is diametrically opposed to the principles that have been established by the venerable process related to publication.  This requires that the minute there is evidence that a reported claim is found to be incorrect - then the correct procedure is to withdraw that publication and acknowledge the error.  Glen Lettenmaier has deleted his previous denials from his thread at Energetic Forum.  And he has NOT withdrawn his paper.  I am actively encouraging him to do so.  Then there will be no further ambiguity.  How more plainly can I put this?

How many times Rosemary, time for a repost    @Fuzzy Rosemary is still not understanding you.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"

May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.

From where I sit this is a TOTAL DENIAL OF A REPLICATION.  Then I ask you.  Why has he NOT withdrawn that Scribd publication?  One would expect a certain amount of consistency.

Regards,
Rosemary