another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Guys,

One of the many complaints against me is that I have taken all these thousands of words to argue my case.  WELL.  That's what's needed.  You see, from the OUTSET there was an entire lack of courtesy and constraint - in the evaluation of a really simple proposal.  Which is this.  IF you impose the theoretical condition of a particle in a magnetic field - then you will find that the field - as known and described in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force - will be seen to be a PRIMARY FORCE.  In other words, its interaction with all matter that is measurable - would then correspond to the known forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear force.  That's a SIMPLE proposal.  It does NOT conflict with the standard model - and it is PROFOUNDLY significant because if it's even HALF RIGHT - it shows the potential to access a copious supply of energy that has, heretofore, been OUT OF REACH.  Certainly that's where it points.

The irony is this.  We were able to PROVE a COP>17.  That resulted in that 'howl' that I referred to earlier.  But from that day to this, there has not been a SINGLE attempt to understand what was meant by that field model.  And THAT - is the unfortunate consequence of the ASSUMPTIONS and ALLEGATIONS that are permitted in these forums.  Where one assumes that we're to have a discussion on physics - we're actually doing nothing more than engaging in - as it's described here - a 'pissing' contest.  And that is UTTERLY inappropriate.  And the ONLY thing that was entirely outlawed was a serious discussion about the fundamentals of that initial proposal.  And THAT was my entire interest.   I've ALWAYS known that our own little demonstration is really just a small, SMALL token to this potential.  God knows.  Even Rossi's extraordinary breakthroughs are just the first opening of that door.

What beggars belief is that there are those members who ASSUME that I may not comment because I have no CREDENTIALS.  I am reasonably satisfied that it would be a relatively easy exercise to write some exams and thereby BECOME credentialed.  But that would most CERTAINLY then promote me as an EXPERT - or WORSE.  What benefit is there in promoting a concept that we all need to wrap our heads around - when it is first required that this is OUT OF REACH unless you're an expert?  This UNDUE deference to qualification.  We are all of us qualified to comment on sscience.  And the wider the engagement the better.  It has, heretofore, and rather unfortunately, been shrouded in mystique.  But fortunately for us all that mystique is now considerably lessened by the hard efforts of those EXPERTS who have tried to explain all of physics in layman's terms.  And if you have assumed that it's difficult and impossibly abstract - let me assure you.  It really is NOT.  It is simple - and actually rather beautiful.  it calls for a study of symmetry - so, it's possibly essentially - geometrical - or mathematical.  But it is NOT out of reach. Not even to my grandchildren.

Anyway.  That's my appeal.  I really need to wrap up this thread.  I'll deal with that over the weekend.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And MileHigh,

As ever, you are MilesOffTheMark.  In answer to your latest nonsense.  Where in our paper do we claim a recharge of that returning energy?  On the contrary.  If you're going to try and argue any part of this then - at its least - one would expect you to refer to our ACTUAL claim.  Not to what you ALLEGE or ASSUME.  One day, I hope, you'll actually make your comments both topical and appropriate.  But that would mean that you'd need to familiarise yourself with what we're ACTUALLY stating.  And I'm not sure that you're quite capable of quite that much.

Regards,
Rosie

[poynt99]

Where in our paper do we claim a recharge of that returning energy?

Below are several instances taken from your paper, which I posted a little while back:

This results in an oscillation that is robust and generates strong current flows that reverse direction, first flowing from and then back to the source and thereby alternately discharging and recharging the battery supply.

What may now be required is a revision of classical power analysis as the computation of wattage returned to that supply results in a negative value, which has little, in any, relevance within classical paradigms.

A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.

This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it.

Because the sum of the energy returned to the battery is greater than the energy delivered, these test results appear to contradict the requirement of a co-efficient of performance (COP) equal to 1.

Infinite COP is defined as the condition where more energy is measured to have been returned to the energy supply source than was first delivered.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Below are several instances taken from your paper, which I posted a little while back:

I THINK we need to establish our TEST measurement protocol before we take this discussion further.  Could you please elaborate on that SECOND optional method of analysis?   Or were you proposing those extraordinary protocols that you detailed above?  We've still to establish what is REQUIRED for PROOF for our demonstration.  Remember?

And I am most certainly NOT about to engage in a discussion of sentences that are isolated out of context. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose

[poynt99]

AFAIAC,

The discussion is already finished.