another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

THEREFORE when you state as you do here...

Once again, nice try Rosemary.
You've proved nothing at all I'm afraid, other than you can whip up a hell of a bullshit salad when you're hungry enough.

then I put it to you that the bullshit salad you claim that I'm trying to toss - is actually your own recipe.  It is INDEED - a load of codswallop.

And here ...

I would encourage you to stick to the arts...you've been gifted in that regard, but in technical aspects such as those you've clumsily ventured into, you're hopelessly lost...actually.

where you seem to think you can adjudicate my talents - or lack of them?  I'm afraid you're somewhat under qualified. 

And here...

My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.

And MY position stands.  Unless you apply those rather quixotic and nonsensical and unscientific parameters - then ACTUALLY, as you put it, OUR CLAIM IS VALID.

We are ALL of us most anxious - to hear a VALID scientific argument to refute our claim.  Unless of course you prefer it that we do YET MORE ANALYSIS on that EXTRAORDINARY document of yours that you keep hoping has put our claim to bed.  Happy to oblige.  It's LONG OVERDUE that our members get familiar with these TACTICS of yours POYNTY POINT.

As ever,
Rosie Posie

[Cloxxki]

People, people...

What is the efficiency of energy conversion? Yes, it varies, but it's not bad.
So much we know about it. We get pretty good efficiencies, is we set our minds to it.

A loop should be possible is there is signficant OU going on in any form of energy, which every the intermediate conversions and by-effects of the technology might be. Light seems to be the most difficult to convert from, motion the easiest? I am far from a specialist on energy conversion, I just observe.

Without a full loop as part of the invention, OU is only claimed, not proven.

So if you MUST run off a battery, use the output of your technology to charge a battery bank. This bank should first have been well-drained by the technology itself, used as mere input without feedback, and for good measure also other charge draining technologies. Switch batteries, and repeat, and repeat. Of course while still putting out useful work as well, accumulation to a greater and greater figure whille never adding batteries.

If you can invent an OU technology bringing more than a dozen percents of OU, you are well capable of looping it. This is also your duty, and should proceed any claim of OU. Forums such as this will offer free advise on how to achieve such a loop. Insulation, direct torque, regeneration, etc.
If you can't loop at this stage, then improve your effiency until you notice that you can keep a large device running on small batteries being switched (electronically) around. Smaller is better.

Ad hominem attacks may seem the core of our existence sometimes, but it sure won't bring us OU.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Cloxxki and Schubert Reiji Maigo,

You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.

Our own technology depends on the standard model.  And in line with this we both predict and measure losses.  All that we're proving is that the energy that is being delivered CANNOT be from the battery supply.  If, as we argue, that energy is coming from the work station of the circuit - from our resistor element - then the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that there is a potential here for the transfer of energy that will GREATLY enhance energy efficiencies.

And we attempt to give a rather detailed account of the thesis in support of this, in the second part of that two-part paper - if you'd care to dip in there.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And ether

I am not arguing with trolls.  I am trying to get you all to realise that Poynt.99's evaluation of science is absolutely NOT standard.  He has made it his mission on these forums to what he calls 'debunk' claims.  As a result there have been many victims with perfectly valid claims that have fallen to this eccentric motive and equally eccentric methodology of his.   Nor would I care that much - except that I see how effective are his ploys.  Certainly without his direct interventions then those - such as you and even Curious Chris - would have been aware of ours and others good efforts and these technologies would then have ADVANCED.  Meanwhile I see it as REQUIRED that our forum members discover the full extent of those fallacies that he's promoting.

Your own thesis in support of these results is interesting and I realise that echoes of it are repeated everywhere on these forums.  Our own thinking is strictly in terms of the standard model.  I personally would be very reluctant to deviate from this.  It's explained, as mentioned in our previous post - in that second paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Cloxxki]

Of course there will be losses. When these are subtracted fromt he energy multification, they should still suffice to be looped back to source, and leave some amount of output available for useful work. Be it keep the tea water warm indefinately, or powering a train that just goes around in circles and won't stop until the wheels come off.

Let's say it is established that a battery can over give 100 united of electric energy.
If you get 200 of heat out, then that's amazing.
Spend 50 on conversion losses (somewhat pessimistic for cutting edge technology), get 150 units of EE out.
50 units are used for powering a downgeared crane, lifting a very large weight.
100 are used to keep the battery charged.

Simplicistic yes, and room to wiggle, but this is my current view burden of proof for overunity.
Any thing less is only trying to reach the level of a pendulum with a magnetic pivot bearing swinging inside a vacume chamber.

Unless you can't or won't loop, you'll be only in the race for brightest AA powered bicycle light, best AA powered drumming bunny, efficient water heater (everyone has 2 or 3 of those in various forms), etc. OU has nothing to do with it.
Any type of energy can be converted. We humans are masters at it. If you get enough of the one, you can make enough of the other. Looping takes away the need for measurement discussions. Does YOUR car run forever on half a charge? Loop it, end discussion, and see Avenue Albert Einstein be renamed to yours. Even Tesla Square.

If you're not getting enough output to dream of looping it, yet claim OU, you're obviously going to be in a measurements discussion, or better: be ignored. Just 10% OU for instance, that's going to be pretty hard to loop. Will require the pinnacle in energy conversion to loop with significant output. It's not impossible though, and shall be your next step towards realizing OU. 10%, that's something I'd fight for.