another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[PhiChaser]

Rosemary,
I agree that this should be open-source stuff. Anything that benefits the human race should be available to everyone everywhere.The 'Franklin Stove' building instructions were given away by Ben because it was the most efficient wood stove design at the time. The more minds working on these problems means better success in finding solutions to those problems.
Absolutely agree that scientists don't know everything and that current EM theory doesn't explain everything. I might post my thoughts on that someday, probably not here though... Unless I discover something that can't be explained away or easily dismissed because it isn't readily explainable (or understandable!) Paradox is everywhere, agreed.
How many people believe that when you flip a light switch to the 'ON' position electrons 'run' up the wires and burn up as light when they hit the filament? Somehow a photon came out of there right? You can show me the math and graphs and try to explain that instant all day long, but to me, THAT is magic because I know that the electron is still there and can do it again!!!
Coral Castle (Coral Gate, FL) didn't build itself and E. Leedskalnin definitely did NOT agree with modern academia even though he understood more than a lot of those people because rather than reading a book and taking it for granted, he tried some experiments of his own and Invented (or re-invented more likely) the PMH. Take a look on the net and you'll find his work. The pamphlets he wrote are an...um... interesting read to say the least.
Stand up and fight for what you believe is right.
We put voltage/current down a wire, create this vortex of power/energy (sounds funny but it spins around the wire, right?) around the wire, then just take the power back out of the wire and forget the vortex we created. Dumb, dumb, dumb... Yeah, most people don't really get it. Red alert is genemod food, 9-11, Patriot act... Oh, you live in SA... Nevermind. Red alert is everywhere
Cheers!
Derrick
P.S. Sorry if I forgot to tick off all your points, but I 'm short on time (gotta go to work)!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys I'm posting this across in case it's missed by the readers of our thread.  We're now getting into a conversation with Professor Steven E Jones.  This is the start of a few posts to follow

Hello Professor, 

I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm.  I was beginning to think that you were deliberately ignoring our claim as you do poor Itseung's.  Anyway.  Let me see if I can put this as clearly as possible - mainly because I think clarity's important.  Wouldn't you agree?

Now.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is.  It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso.  On other tests we only manage to take the temperature of the element resistor to something that's mildly uncomfortable to the touch.  Not the kind of precision that I suspect you're looking for.  But that's not the thrust of our question.  As mentioned, I'm anxious to find out how you actually calculate the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery.  Here's our problem.  We are applying standard measurement protocols.  And for the life of us we cannot find any evidence of any energy at all - being delivered by those batteries.  Which leaves us with that rather puzzling anomaly of INFINITE COP.  Not  easily explained in terms of the standard model - unless, of course,  there are measurement errors.

WELL.  Here's the thing.  Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis.  If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker.  But what do I know. So.  What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG.  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak.  Actually that's possibly tautological.      In any event.  You know what I mean.  Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number.  And our claim will be defeated at the get go.  Actually, come to think of it.  ANYONE AT ALL - who ever tries to prove over unity in the future - and under these unconventional measurement conventions - will ALSO, inevitably, be left with something CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN UNITY. 

Please do clarify this.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

  I certainly agree with this, Rose:
OK, so we're focussing for now on the Input power of your device; that's fine.

I certainly agree with you here, Rose:
  On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link. 
(Sorry to ask if you already provided it and I've missed it.)  Perhaps this discussion will enlighten Lawrence too -- all of us!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

COPIED OVER.  I couldn't manage that 'nested' post number.  The best I could do with it.  Anyway.  One more post to follow and then the argument's on track.

Dear Professor,

Regarding this question - so that we're on the same page so to speak, where you asked...

On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link.

And this in answer to my own question where I asked...

Hello Professor, 

WELL.  Here's the thing.  Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis.  If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker.  But what do I know. So.  What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG.  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

This was the ANSWER ACCORDING TO POYNTY'S REVISED PHYSICS

You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.

Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.

Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor. So we have:

P_RLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:

P_VBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)

So the answers to the question are:

a) Battery Power = -250W
b) R_LOAD Power = 250W

Understood? Agreed?

Which in turn was detailed by Poynty Point in this post on my own thread...THERE IT IS.  IN BLACK AND WHITE.  Actually.  I've taken the trouble to 'highlight' his argument in red. 

Now here's the thing.  Here's where we find ourselves between the Devil and the deep blue sea - as they say.  Where we're skewered.  On the horns of a dilemma.  Trapped between a rock and a hard place.  You get the drift?  It's because your prize is 'hooked' somehow to Poynty's prize at OUR.com.  And Poynty Point has insisted that unless I and my collaborators FIRST commit the unpardonable HERESY of CONCEDING THAT THE BATTERY IN THE FOLLOWING SCHEMATIC IS DELIVERING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE?  ?  ?  ?     then he WON'T EVEN TALK TO US - LET ALONE CONSIDER OUR CLAIM FOR A PRIZE? 

NOT ONLY THAT - but he also reserves the right to USE that method as an alternate convention in analysing our tests.     And you see for yourself?  It's a parody of logic.  An abuse of science as taught by our esteemed and revered.  A rebuttal of the logic forged by our Greats.  A challenge to and a criticism of the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC FRATERNITY who require that convention determines the wattage delivered by the battery is POSITIVE. 

NOW.  IF indeed, he is allowed this rather, as I've described it 'QUIXOTIC' measurement's convention - then we will NEVER be able to argue that our results are OVER UNITY.  You see why I trust?  Because where we would NORMALLY compute a negative wattage, where even our little LeCroy Oscilloscope computes a negative wattage in measuring our test results - then - IN THE FLICK OF AN EYE - at the WAVE OF A WAND - Poynty Point will change our NEGATIVE WATTAGE MEASUREMENTS in our own experimental results TO POSITIVE.    Which means we'll have no gain at all.  Which is somewhat troubling.  And if you ENDORSE this 'convention' then you too would be able to deny us.  Which is not actually playing 'fair'.

Again.  Please comment.  I'll try and download that schematic again - lest we lose sight of where he's applying this utterly INSANE protocol.  And lest you think that my own delusions are that rampant that I've misconstrued his argument.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, this is the last post.  Now just awaiting a reply.
And here's the link to the thread where this was copied.  I'm hoping we can continue the conversation here - but it's unlikely.  In which case, if you're following this, perhaps just dip in there.  It will be interesting to see how this dilemma is resolved.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
http://www.overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/msg311943/#new


And Professor,

Regarding that post of mine - you'll see that I've avoided mention of the science 'behind' the established protocol.  I could, I suppose, rabbit on about the fact that the direction of current flow is determined by the polarity of the applied voltage.  And I could also explain that the voltage induced across a load resistor is in anti phase with the potential difference from the supply.  But the truth is that I've argued this through 27 pages on my own thread where every mention of it was IGNORED.  And I'm rather concerned that should I try and argue those rather elementary facts - then they'll be ignored again.  So what I've done now - is SIMPLY present Poynt's argument - IF such it is - and I'll let you deal with it as best you can.  Possibly there's something that not only I, but the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has overlooked.

And as Poynty Point has argued.  'Who cares?'  What does it matter?  What difference would it make if I merely argued science?  He's bound to be believed over any argument that I present -  because he's got 27 years of experience in electronics under his belt.  I've puzzled over that poynt of his - that 'justification'.  I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant.  You see.  What's at question has NOTHING to do with electronics and EVERYTHING to do with elementary power analysis.  And from where I sit - he needs to do a refresher course here.  Unless, of course, he's deliberately misleading us all.  Which I hope is NOT the case.

Again, regards, and as ever
Rosie 
edited - for clarity.