another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys,

I'm delighted to see that Poynty Point has put our papers up for view.  HOW DOES HE DO THAT?  Anyway - for now, for those who want to read those papers - here's the link.  Hopefully I've done this right.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767

Its he second paper that covers the thesis.  The first is the experimental evidence.  It seems that exnihiloest has this to say about the paper -

The power provided by the function generator can't be neglected because the source impedence of a mosfet is much lower than the gate impedence. -
- Then I read: "The offset of the function generator was set to its extreme negative limit".  This means that the function generator provides continuous current and therefore extra energy that was not taken into account.  These papers make no sense, really a "fantasy world".

He's wrong.  We have measured the energy coming from the functions generator and factored that into our analysis.  It's clearly referenced in that same paper.  Can he read?  Anyway.  It makes not a blind bit of difference to our results.  They still show infinite COP.  Go figger.

Delighted with this development.  I had no idea one could make a file available to the public like this.  Thank you Poynty Point.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I've been trying to clean this up. That 'Bold' button screws up the presentation.  Is Harti aware of this?
Anyway it's the best I can do at editing this.

R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Guys,

This is mainly for Harti, Poynty and Steve. Just a little bit more on the 'challenge'.  As you are now able to reference the paper directly - here is what the experiments prove.

That more energy is returned to the battery than was first delivered by the battery.  This is evident in the computation of wattage based on vi dt - the product of which results in a negative wattage.  Very carefully measured, using broadband oscilloscopes and cross checked through data dumps  and spreadsheet analyses from those scopes. 

This points to an alternate supply of energy from the battery itself.  Obviously.  Else the amount of energy returned should be equivalent to the that supplied - at best.  Now - it can be argued that the energy is coming from ground.  Or, alternatively, that the energy is coming from the function generator.  We disprove this by the following.  The function generator can be replaced with a 555 switch.  It gives us an equivalent result - STILL THAT NEGATIVE PRODUCT - but we're now restricted to the 'range' of potentials that we can test.  Which is why we continue using the function generator.  We also point to the fact that there can be no interference from GROUND - as the Tektronix Oscilloscope HAS NO GROUND and it gives PRECISELY the same values as our LE CROY.  And IF the energy is coming from the signal itself - which is from whatever it is that is powering the switch - then that is simply 'factored' into our equations as a power source.  And what it shows is that the amount of energy that is delivered in that signal - DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT HUGE SURPLUS OF ENERGY DELIVERED BACK TO THE BATTERY.  Indeed - it is the smallest fraction of the energy that we measure.

Therefore can we conclude that there is unequivocal proof of a source of energy that is available to that circuit that does not come from the battery supply.

That the material of current must have a charge to account for it's justification through those circuit components which would otherwise be prevented under usual open circuit conditions.  Under usual circuit conditions - when it's opened - then the battery is NOT able to deliver any energy.  Yet, here we have proof that DESPITE the switch being open - the circuit is able to generate STRONG current flows in both directions through that circuit.

Therefore we can conclude that current itself has a charge that determines its justification or path through a circuit.

Then we prove that with adjustments to the duty cycle and to the frequencies - we can vary that oscillation to produce a continuous current - an oscillation that can take water to boil - and an oscillation that has the potential to act as a booster converter - ALL resulting in that zero discharge of energy from the battery supply.

Therefore we can conclude that the technology has a potential to deliver low and high energies as required and depending on those settings.

The second paper points to the thesis.  It is argued that provided one attributes a material property of a magnetic dipole - to a magnetic field - then it can entirely account for this oscillation and for the paths that are evident in the flow of current.  Therefore current flow may have a magnetic property that has not been entirely factored into the standard model.  Without this theorised imposition of the particle and it's bipolar potential - then there is no explanation within the standard model.  And all we use are Faraday's Lines of Force.  In short - we argue that magnetic fields assemble in lines of force.  They are responsible for binding matter - or ATOMS - into their coalesced structures.  When they are open they can reassemble as open lines of force which would result in some evident 'charge' justification measured as voltage imbalance.  Or they can simply degrade or decay into a chaotic condition - in which case they can be measured as heat.  Or INDEED.  In the electric application of this - then we get evidence of BOTH voltage imbalance from some of those binding fields - AND heat from some of those fields when they are no longer in a field condition.  Which then compromises the 'bound' condition of coalesced matter.

Then we conclude with a discursive analysis where we point to the fact that all manifest 'sparks' 'fire' and 'flame' are simply these fields in their chaotic condition when they're no longer in their invisible field condition.  And being removed from their binding condition - they immediately compromise the bound condition of that material.  Now.  Being invisible is simply being 'out' of the range of detection of light.  Therefore it is possible that their velocity in a field condition exceeds light speed.  By the same token the 'sparks' and 'fire' and 'flame' are visible to light.  Therefore in the same way - their chaotic condition must be at a velocity that is slow enough for light to interact.  Also.  The sparks, fire and flame can be measured as heat.  Therefore through an extension of this logic - the particles themselves are as hot and as slow and as visible in a chaotic state, as they were previously cold and fast and invisible in their field condition.  Therefore - if these two states are just two aspects of the same particle - then this may, indeed, be the source of that electric energy that has eluded definition all these centuries.

BACK TO THE CHALLENGE

Clearly there are no members who are into theory.  So.  Let's leave that aside.  I put it to Poynty and Steve Jones and Harti - that not only have we proved that it is relatively easy to EXCEED unity constraints - but that current itself comprises this elusive 'dark matter' particle that all have been hunting for.  Surely that merits investigation?   And surely that merits our claims for their prizes?  After all.  We are using ABSOLUTELY STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS AND IMPECCABLE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And by the way - Poynty Point. 

You've rather underestimated the number of readers on my blog.  They far exceed the number on your own - but are not as high as Harti's forum.  Hopefully, as time goes by, that will change.  Every month increases those numbers.  I've been seriously tempted to go the route of capitalising on this - but will resist it as long as I can.

Wake up Poynty Point.  It's only YOU and your dogs who insist that we have NOTHING.  Just evaluate the evidence, for God's sake - and stick to the topic.  And make public your conditions for that prize you're flaunting.  We're determined that if its OVER UNITY you want to prove - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  We've got all the proof that you need.  And we'd rather enjoy claiming that prize.  The truth is that you actually need look no further than Rossi's technology.  I see you're avoiding mention of that like the plague.  It's that very big ELEPHANT sitting full frontal in your forum.  You'll have to acknowledge it eventually.  THEN?  What will you do?  My guess is that it'll put paid to your 'raison d'etre' and likely compromise your livelihood. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Chet,

If, as you claim - you did not provide that link - then - indeed - I, and one or two members who alerted me to it - must be entirely deluded.  Frankly I'm inclined to believe that you may have 'inadvertently' posted it.  Either way - it did not 'stop the world from spinning'.  And I was mildly amused at best because that - like so many other representations about me are absurd and rather comical.  You probably have seen them on that 'hate blog' dedicated to me.  But don't let that monopolise your attention.  More relevant to the issue are those many other points that I raised.  I wonder if I can impose on you to comment

It is a fact that we have proved that electric current has a dual charge potential.  It is a fact that we have measured infinite COP.  It is a fact that we have taken water to boil at NO MEASURED COST OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY.  It is a fact that these results were required and predicted in terms of a magnetic field model.  It is a fact, therefore, that we qualify for Poynty's over unity prize.  And it is also a FACT that Poynty has NOT  responded to our challenge for his prize.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps you can enlighten us.  You're knee deep in there.

It is also a FACT that ALL these forums are very carefully NOT talking about Rossi's technology which, frankly outperforms ALL our claims.  Again.  I wonder why that is?

Do advise us.  You really need to - if we're to engage in all this apparent enthusiasm for over unity results.  It would be very sad to learn that you never reference our own work because Poynty and Harvey have advised you all that it doesn't work. 

Regards
Rosemary

And Chet - please don't overlook this post of mine.  We're looking for some answers here.

Rosemary

[poynt99]

Hello Poynty Point,

Regarding your claim that our measurements are wrong.  Not sure where?  Could you please point out where, in our paper, our protocols deviate from standard protocols.

You are quite aware of the analysis I performed, and the 42 page document that was posted. Here is a link again to that document:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=5403

If you can not open pdf files, I would strongly encourage you to join the 20th century and update your computer so that it will do so. Failing that, have someone print it out for your reading pleasure. I would urge you to study it well, as it explains all or most of your errors.

I can assure you that our paper has been vetted by some rather weighty academics...

I find this to be extremely unlikely. Post their names and credentials (I know you'll say they'd rather not). If they are indeed real academics, then they ought to join you in that power measurement 101 course I recommended you attend.

.99