another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

I asked Rosemary to explain the difference between Energy and Power. Here are a couple of relevant replies:

TK - Why do you go on and on and on ... about this?
I have absolutely NO idea how to answer it in any abbreviated form that would be appropriate for these posts.  WHAT energy are you talking about?  From the top of my head I know there's chemical energy - magnetic energy  - nuclear energy.  There's energy of mass.  There's radiant energy.  And I don't think I've even skimmed the surface.  And Power - as I understand it - is the rate at which any one of those various types of energy is transferred.   Now. Let's see if YOU can answer a question.  WHY DO YOU ASK?  Is it because you ASSUME that I don't have an answer?  Is this some kind of 'test' where you can gauge my competence?  Are you satisfied that you can LURK in the background - and then impose these irrelevancies on this thread?

Rosemary

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.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Don't you GET it, Bubba? Words mean what Rosemary wants them to mean, and that can be different from day to day. You are trying to argue with someone who thinks that the definitions of Energy and Power, and their common units, are IRRELEVANT to the measurement of her circuit and the evaluation of her claims.
Not only doesn't she care what people commonly mean when they talk about Watts or Joules, she considers the whole issue to have NOTHING to do with the topic.



Once again, Rosemary: The Watt is a unit of Power. Power is the RATE at which energy is transferred or dissipated. (At least you got that part right, even if you don't understand it mathematically.) The Joule is a unit of Energy. Energy is the ability to perform work. Energy is the conserved quantity, NOT POWER. A Joule (one unit of ENERGY), exerted (or dissipated if you like) during the time of one second, is one Watt of power. When you pay your electric bill you pay for "WattHours" or Watts x time.... in other words ENERGY units. The Watt is NOT equal to the Joule, as you say above, and the Joule is NOT "one watt per second" as you say above. For your information, when we say "per", that is equivalent to division. One Mile Per Hour is the same as 1 mile/hour. The correct formulation is this: One Watt = One Joule Per Second, or 1 J/sec. One Joule = One WattSecond (sometimes written as Watt-second, where the "-" actually indicates multiplication), that is, 1 W x 1 second. In other words, a RATE times a DURATION. If only you had completed algebra you might be able to grasp the difference. And if you had gone on to study the calculus, like just about everyone you are trying to argue with has done, you might be able to begin to grasp where your fundamental error lies.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Good gracious TinselKoala,

If I didn't know better I'd say you're rather ALARMED at all this.  So much hard work in getting those schedules in order.  That HISTORY that you like to misrepresent.     Those questions about my competence.     I trust someone is making this worth your while.  It seems rather excessive if there's NOTHING TO THIS TECHNOLOGY.  And that's EASILY PROVED by a DEMONSTRATION. If it's wrong - it'll be DISMISSED.  You see this, I trust?  Your opinions, your allegations, your rather obsessive interests in everything about me - rather proves that you're really, really worried.  WHY?  We all know that any claim that's nonsense will be shown to be nonsense.  The worst of it is that I'll need to address EVERYTHING that your ALLEGE - lest anyone ever believe you again.  So.  Let's see what gives.

Irrelevancies? I ask you if you understand the difference between power and energy.... in a thread that is about measuring the Power and Energy of your magic circuit? A thread in which you post things like this:

My understanding of energy and the differences between power and energy is/are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.  The only thing that is relevant is whether the applied protocols as detailed in our paper - are RIGHT or WRONG.  And I'm rather concerned that you assume the circuit is MAGIC?  We only claim that it's operating according to known physical principles - especially as it relates to Inductive Laws.  Read our paper.

Then there's this...

Rosemary, I've put this here because I know how you like to go back and "edit" your old posts when they have been shown to be... wrong. You are making EASILY TESTABLE claims here... and they HAVE been tested..... and not verified.

Which in turn relates to this little schedule that I'm delighted to REFERENCE as often as is possible - without boring the pants of our readers.  HERE IT IS AGAIN 

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Which part of this schedule are you concerned with.  And what EXACTLY is your concern?  That I'm lying?  Again.  A simple demonstration will resolve this.  It's all I require and all I've asked for from Professor and from Poynty Point.

I'll have to split this post.  It's getting seriously long.
R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK's concerns - continued/...

Just show a simple YT video of Claim 1, for example: A robust oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 

That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected.

None of your claims here are supportable by you or any of your "collaborators".

On the contrary.  They're well supported.  Just check out the paper.  And if you want more data - ask me.  I can give you enough to sink the Titanic - or CERTAINLY enough to sink Classical prediction.

I find it especially funny that Chessnyt has quoted Err-on Murakami, your sycophant from a couple years ago.... who, when he first started working on your circuit, didn't even understand how a mosfet circuit works at all, nor how to use an oscilloscope to make actual measurements. He also lies when he claims to be the "first" to demonstrate some things about your circuit... when we all know who REALLY did the definitive demonstrations of your circuit.

We all know how competitive you are TK.  Unfortunately you're experimental aptitudes are seriously wanting.  Aaron on the other hand is - A NATURAL.

This has been done, years ago, many times. Rosemary's circuit is less effective than heating water through an equivalent load with the same amount of DC power, and the batteries will drain faster, and I can prove this.... and so can anyone else who will ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.

WE KNOW THIS.  I think, indeed, that you DID disprove it.  But you didn't manage EVER to get that Parasitic Hartley Oscillation.  So all you ACTUALLY proved is your own experimental ineptitude. I certainly don't count that against you.  It would have been EXTRAORDINARY - HAD you proved it - given your reluctance to concede to the principle of over unity.

Rosemary, if the past two years have proved anything, it is that you don't understand "standard measurement protocols".  For example.... please explain to me just how "probe skew" can affect measurements on pulsed power circuits.

My dear TK.  I've said this before and I'll say it as often as required.  My understanding or otherwise, my aptitudes or lack thereof, my intelligence - or stupidity - my talents, my lack of talents - THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.  The ONLY thing that matters is what we, as a group of collaborators - have written and presented as proof of the tests that we have conducted.  THAT'S IT. 

R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And yet more of TK's concerns. They're endless - continued/...

Most people would have to have SOMETHING connected to the battery in order to measure it. But then we don't have your..... perspicacity.

Golly.  Perspicacity - no less.  LOL.  And this about someone with a heavily compromised intellect?    Or do I detect some heavy handed sarcasm?  God forbid.

And...when the battery is ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED...... you are able to measure "energy returned to the battery".... using "standard measurement protocols"...... but nobody else is able to do so....

Not actually TK.  I don't know anyone who's duplicated these experiments on this forum - or this thread.  If there are any - then do let me know.  I only know that Poynty Point managed this oscillation on his simulation.  And then he denied those results based on the fact that the NEW AND CORRECT protocol is to apply the probe of the oscilloscope to the negative terminal of the battery.  Which we PROPOSE may rather CONFRONT some rather well established conventions.

Now, Professor Joule Seeker .... do you begin to see what you are up against? Rosemary doesn't understand the difference between power and energy, she doesn't understand the principle of integration, she doesn't understand what a capacitor does or how it stores and transfers energy, she doesn't understand basic conventions of algebra....... and she doesn't understand how to do power and energy measurements in pulsed spiky circuits.

LOL.  I really don't care to deny this.  It makes for such interesting reading.

Gosh.  That's it?  No more on this post. 
Ok TK.  THERE'S MY REPLY. 

As ever, Rosy
Pose.

I've taken out a whole lot of duplications.  Apologies guys.  I think I hit the paste button once or twice too often.
R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Just as an aside and this is for our dear Ramset who OSTENSIBLY professes to support over unity,

In the light of these arguments do you SERIOUSLY propose that TK would be the right choice to arbitrate on that Serbian professor and his claim?  I think the evidence is rather OVERWHELMING that his mission is to DENY over unity - even if, as a last resort - he needs to attack the CLAIMANT rather than the CLAIM.  I wonder that you haven't asked him to adjudicate on Andrea Rossi's technology - or even LASERSABER's?  Is it because neither of them bother with these forums?  So all you're left with is me and our rather modest little efforts in this regard?

And by the way (BTW) - I still haven't managed to find out more about that SA motor number.  But I'll keep at it.  I think the best solution would be to write to Sterling Allen.  I doubt that those experimenters want anonymity else they'd not involve Sterling in the first place.  I'll let you all know if I ever do find out more. 

Regards,
Rosemary