another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity. As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP. You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home. At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.

TK    - HOW NICE IS THIS?

It's always a comfort to me to see that you're concentrating on my history.  And INDEED - I've learned MUCH.  Golly. 

Did Ramset get hold of you?  He needs you to adjudicate in yet another 'debunk' related to cavitation? energy? - something?  He seems to think that you'd be the best choice to advance this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

By the way.  Did you read those arguments against Poynty Point.  I've rather made mincemeat of his nonsense.  Did he ask you to come to his rescue?  I fully understand why.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now, TinselKoala - lest you think I'm ducking the issue - let me explain this again.

Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity.

IF I do NOT understand how to measure the energy flowing in a circuit - then rest assured.  My collaborators do.  And they have endorsed the measurements based on the data from our oscilloscopes.

As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP.

I've explained this.  In that paper.  We do NOT recharge the battery.  What we manage is to NOT DISCHARGE IT.  The assumption is that we can get an endless supply of current flow.  IF ONLY.  But to do that we'd need to perform feats of magic.  IF, as we propose, current flow actually comprises the material of a magnetic particle - then the downside is that particle cannot 'give birth' to more and more particles - which would be required - if we were ever to simply recharge more and more batteries.  For some reason, TinselKoala, you are expecting us to perform FEATS OF MAGIC.  We are, all of us collaborators, mere mortals.  We cannot therefore oblige.

You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

This is uncharacteristically obtuse.  What are you complaining about?  That I'm prevaricating - when I have explained PRECISELY why we not only CANNOT comply - but would not be able to - under any conditions whatsoever.  It exceeds our claim and is - in my opinion - beyond the capabilities of a mere mortal to perform.  I have NEVER changed the definition of an 'over unity' device.  There is nothing ambiguous about the term to require definition - in the first place.  And how can you say that our device is not able to power anything?  We've taken water to boil from batteries that are entirely disconnected to the circuit which technically means that they should be incapable of delivering energy.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home.

I've explained this.  I cannot run my household appliances on 100 watts.  Just NOT DOABLE.

At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.

THANK YOU TK.  Nice to see that you acknowledge my personal progress.  You see how I apply myself?  You should try it.  Does wonders for the soul.

Kindest regards again,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And BTW (by the way)  just to get the record straight.  We have submitted a total of 5 papers to the IEEE.  ONLY 1 WAS EVER REJECTED - and that was closely followed by an appeal to RESUBMIT.

You're casting those 'nasturtiums' - TinselKoala.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think you had an agenda.

But kindest regards, nonetheless
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And to all of you who read here - PLEASE feel free to comment.  But here's the reminder.  I am NOT about to perform any more tests until I do this for Poynty Point, Harti and Steven E Jones.  And then it will simply be a repeat of the 4 tests that were shown in our paper.

I am more than happy to answer any concerns related to errors of measurement - especially if those concerns have not been answered in our paper.  If we've overlooked something then we most certainly need to look into it. 

And on this side of over unity claims - I would strongly urge any of you who want to - to try and put our apparatus together.  It does not need to have the PRECISE resistor.  I personally know of it being applied to a solder iron, a bank of LED's and even a standard shop bought 1000 watt ceramic resistor.  And a duplication of that oscillating waveform, is very easy to replicate.  The minute you find this - then you are looking at the evidence of a current that has NOT been generated by the battery supply source - regardless of the measurements.  I assure you all.  You will be surprised.  If you configure the circuit as Harti has recommended - with a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of the FETs you will get a continuous oscillation for the duration - which oscillation is NOT parasitic.  It's TOO STRONG to be explained away so easily.

The only thing I would add is that - while it is relatively easy to find that waveform - it is not always easy to establish the measurements.  To get it to the required NEGATIVE wattage value - then you really need to fine tune it.  And for that, unfortunately, we need sophisticated instruments. - So, if you're game, ether22 or anyone at all - this is NOT a black art.  It's a really simple circuit configuration.  And you can generate that oscillation EASILY

And on the other side of over unity claims - those healthy sceptics amongst you all - the MR MAGS and the like - then I recommend that you try the same. Certainly before you deny the evidence which we've gone to such lengths to record.  And please remember that it takes very little effort to publicly denounce anything at all.  But one hopes for a modicum of impartiality here on these forums else we'll be working AGAINST what may well be a new science - related to new insights. And all this may then ADVANCE rather than REGRESS our global best interests - and INDEED the best interests of science itself.  It helps NOTHING to simply dismiss the evidence for the hell of it.  That's not science.  That's medieval. 

And then for the balance of you.  That small but very noisy minority - who SHOUT their denials with rather less restraint than they should.  I put it to you that you have all been monopolising our scientific commentary to the detriment of a new science and at the cost of any reasonable analysis.  It will ALWAYS be a tribute to the efforts of these forums that so many people have had the COURAGE to challenge conventional science on its own terms.  Experimental evidence.  It is ABSOLUTELY a first - in our scientific history.  And I fondly believe that it's awakened an interest in this field of energy that has been outlawed - historically - by our own academics.  Therefore.  With the utmost respect.  IF you feel compelled to comment on whatever grounds at all - BUT ESPECIALLY when you offer PRIZES for evidence of breach - then I would strongly recommend that your ANALYSIS REMAIN APPROPRIATE TO SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOLS - and not to the SUPRIOUS RUNNING COMMENTARY about the character, stupidity or credentials of the proposer.  JUST STICK TO SCIENCE.  It would be enormously gratifying.  And it would be some tribute to the respect that one hopes you have for the proud history of science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Hello again you can just call me Schubert (It's the name of great composer since I'm pianist...) and Reiji Maigo something like Midnight's Child (a fictional apparatus in a Japanese Manga that can produce unlimited spiritual energy, it recharge itself every midnight...) It's a perpetual motion machine...


To respond to your earlier comment: Have you tried to hook up for example 5 heater in parallel the five heater will produce 500 watts, As I recall correctly you can find as low 150-200 watts Stirling engine...




In any case good luck to your research !!!