another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary:

Don't worry this is just an example for Cloxxki.
Even with a ridiculous COP if the efficiency is good, you can do it !!!

If you can get an infinite COP (I guess your input is 0) N / 0  = Infinity... (That's why mathematician say it's "impossible" you have a singularity here)...

Self loop is the finger in the nose you can get even Nobel for that !!!

Regards, Schubert.

Ok Schubert.  I thought you were also denying my evidence. 



Regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Nothing to that,
I'm skeptic but open minded at the same time, even for things like paranormal, UFO, etc,  and of course FE...

"Impossible" is not in my dictionary but "Improbable" yes...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Nothing to that,
I'm skeptic but open minded at the same time, even for things like paranormal, UFO, etc,  and of course FE...

"Impossible" is not in my dictionary but "Improbable" yes...

lol.  That's perfectly healthy Schubert.      Nothing wrong with an open mind.  Provided only it doesn't then accommodate Poynty's extraordinary science.  And nothing wrong with a moderate helping of scepticism. 

Rosemary

[Cloxxki]

I lack all kinds of physics knowledge to begin to understand your respective papers.

I can however probably invent a system that will be a kind of capacitor, with accumulated energy (from input) slushing around in controlled flow. Measuring on specific part of this flow will surely offer near infinite COP numbers, if considered to reflect that. Like a tiny engine running a flywheel. Eventually the kinetic energy harnessed equals the capacity of the battery. If you then just measure the weight being lifted on the upside of the flywheel even single second...well you understand.

OU is not there if the output cannot be extracted. Like candy in a box you can't eat from, as the mean fairy will make it all disappear instantly. You don't need a real scientist to tell you that.
You've got heat? Great, let it be dissipated by a heat engine. You can make an abundance, after all?

Lower you COP claim to 3 and make it happen. Conversion technology is well in place, and can be tailored to your device.
I'll be the first to write to the Nobel Commity to promote your work when it's looped. An OU claim without even an attempt to loop, should be considered borderline fraud, or worse. In fact, it could be considered a crime against humanity, as any OU claim directs brain power away from other projects, which are all more meritable.

My limited science background doesn't allow me to see the fine difference between an amazing OU device from lazy inventor failing to loop it, and a capacitor. I'd like to be educated though. for now, I'm with Schubert and Poynt on this.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I lack all kinds of physics knowledge to begin to understand your respective papers.

I can however probably invent a system that will be a kind of capacitor, with accumulated energy (from input) slushing around in controlled flow. Measuring on specific part of this flow will surely offer near infinite COP numbers, if considered to reflect that. Like a tiny engine running a flywheel. Eventually the kinetic energy harnessed equals the capacity of the battery. If you then just measure the weight being lifted on the upside of the flywheel even single second...well you understand.

OU is not there if the output cannot be extracted. Like candy in a box you can't eat from, as the mean fairy will make it all disappear instantly. You don't need a real scientist to tell you that.
You've got heat? Great, let it be dissipated by a heat engine. You can make an abundance, after all?

Lower you COP claim to 3 and make it happen. Conversion technology is well in place, and can be tailored to your device.
I'll be the first to write to the Nobel Commity to promote your work when it's looped. An OU claim without even an attempt to loop, should be considered borderline fraud, or worse. In fact, it could be considered a crime against humanity, as any OU claim directs brain power away from other projects, which are all more meritable.

My limited science background doesn't allow me to see the fine difference between an amazing OU device from lazy inventor failing to loop it, and a capacitor. I'd like to be educated though. for now, I'm with Schubert and Poynt on this.

Cloxxki - that was indeed a thoughtful post.  Thanks for that.  I've spent the last half hour trying to answer it and I CANNOT do this without going into that much detail that I may as well just repost our entire paper.  And that you're asking at all - is proof that you can't understand it.  Can I ask you this?  Could you take the trouble to read it and then ask me  precisely what is NOT clear.  That's assuming that you understand any of it at all.  I'd be DELIGHTED to engage.  I know that the thinking has eluded the most of you.  It may help everyone.  Especially me.  Because I never know at which point the logic becomes obtuse.

Very, very broadly, the proposal is that there is a FIXED NUMBER OF these magnetic particles in magnetic fields.  And these magnetic fields comprise the material structure of current flow. Well. Depending on a path allowed for by the circuit - current flow is the movement of these particles, which always return to their source.  This flow is a coherent field condition.  But given an imbalanced field, then it generates heat.  And HEAT is a chaotic condition of the 'field'.  And then these particles can transmute into photons and then irradiate away from that source.  Therefore HEAT is the measurable rate at which these fields are depleted.  And they can't be recovered.  Previously these structured orderly fields bound that circuit material into it's coalesced condition.  Therefore in a chaotic condition, when these photons deplete the number of those binding fields, then the depletion also then compromises the bound condition of the circuit material.

So.  We can move current around - from one battery to another, and we can even generate copious amounts of heat - but we cannot prevent a depletion of those particles as they irradiate away from their source.  And because it's a 'fixed amount' then we cannot recharge batteries without subtracting from the original amount or quantity from that source. 

In short.  All we've proposed is that there's all this potential energy in bound matter - which is in line with Einstein's mass energy equivalence.  And we can use this in inductive and conductive material.  Where we deviate from the standard model ASSUMPTION is in that this suggests that the ONLY source of energy to a circuit is from the source supply.  A battery or some such.  A required source of potential difference.  We PROVE that this potential can be transferred and then USED - EXCLUSIVELY from the material in those circuit components.  Its potential value, therefore, is that we can generate this 'flow' without compromising the potential difference in the battery source supply.  So.  We get a gradual degradation of the circuit material at no attendant cost of the potential difference from the battery.  Which is valuable INDEED.  But it's NOT PERPETUAL MOTION. And strangely, it resolves a lot of questions related to the property of electric energy and voltage and current flow.  In other words - it does NOT conflict with the evidence.  But nota bene.  It also depends on the voltage or potential difference that's enabled in that inductive/conductive material.  This potential will also deplete at a rate that is consistent with the amount of energy that is irradiated away from that source.

But PLEASE.  Do ASK.  As mentioned - I have no CLUE if anything that I write is even vaguely comprehensible.  And I would LOVE to make this clear.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary