another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And, Poynty Point.  I put it to you that IF that is a definitive test - then there should be absolutely NO difficulties in finding the academics to endorse it.  I suspect that you'll have difficulties - notwithstanding.  And then you'll begin to appreciate why it is that I have difficulty in engaging ANY ACADEMICS AT ALL to go ON RECORD - about any part of these our claims.

Always and ever,
Rosie Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here's a direct copy from a LOCKED THREAD.  I've highlighted the comment related to battery draw down tests. So don't give me that I've REFUSED to do that test.  It was discussed in depth.

Which makes this statement somewhat questionable - to put it politely.

Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the DEFINITIVE test I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99

And here's that first reference - chosen at random.
solid state devices / Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 « on: June 24, 2011, 01:48:43 AM »   
My dear Cat.  I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work.  What happened?  Why are you back?  I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.

Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration.  We DO.  He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device.  We ARE.  He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look.  We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket.  Stefan declined our offer.  BUT.  Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device.  For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer.   That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting.  In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.

NOW.  Let's look at your second beef.  The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'.  REALLY?  The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting.  All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals.  And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on.  They see how I have been treated.  They know better. 

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

Now.  Back to your demands.  You want conclusive evidence.  It's already there.  But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death.  I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control.  But again.  I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.

And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE.  What if you're wrong?  What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG?  Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda?  What then?  I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.

Which means what?  It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here.  Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green?  So.  I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate.  And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate.  And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured.  I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief.  So.  I"m not writing for you.  I'm writing for the readers.

Regards,
Rosemary 

[Bubba1]

Wow!  More Rosemary math.  I thought we went through this before.  Your math skills stink.  It was wrong back in June, and it's still wrong.

MISTER Bubba

[TinselKoala]

Holy carp. I check in just for "grins" and I find this jewel of pseudomathematics from Rosemary.

Here's what happens when you drop out of high school and ignore mathematics.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.

Notice that there's no TIME ELEMENT in that definition.

We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.

OK... so that took how many Joules of energy? 900 grams x 66 degrees x 4.18 Joules per gram per degree=  248292 Joules. This is how much energy was expended to heat the water. The TIME DOES NOT ENTER here.

We ran that test for 90 minutes.

OK... so you expended 248292 Joules PER 90 minutes. This is an energy divided by a TIME... .which gives a RATE of energy dissipation... aka POWER. Your average power was  (248292/(90x60)) = 45.98 Watts for the first 90 minutes.

Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.

NO---A JOULE IS ONE WATT_SECOND, NOT ONE WATT/SECOND. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR YOU KEEP MAKING. And how did you get water up to 104 degrees C? Did you use a pressurized container? The rise from 82 to 104 C  (22 degrees, not 20) will take another 4.18 x 900 x 22 = 82,764 Joules, and if you expended those in 10 minutes, your average power for that phase was (82,764/(10x60)) = 138 Watts. That is if you were able to keep the water from boiling. If the water boiled, that phase change into steam takes a lot more energy.... but still nothing like the numbers you come up with below. You've expended more like half a million Joules, not the 25 million you claim so foolishly right out in public with your laughable "math". It's no wonder your batteries might show the same voltage after as before--- you've barely tapped their total capacity.

So.  Do the math.

EVERYBODY READING HERE IS ROFLING RIGHT NOW>>>>>

4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. 

Preserved for posterity....
This is completely wrong. See my calculation of the first 90 minutes above. The phase change due to boiling will take a lot of energy but not nearly as much as your numbers here.

All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. 

If your calculations are as above, I have shown that they are incorrect.... therefore you are once again spewing your particular brand of ignorant and arrogant bullshit.

And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

There is no way to know that a battery is fully charged... unless you DISCHARGE IT AND MEASURE THE ENERGY. Then, of course, it won't be charged any more.

[poynt99]

And I am not about to go into an explanation as to why that test you propose is RIDICULOUSLY INEFFECTIVE.  It speaks for itself.  Just another reckless attempt at misguiding all and sundry. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Gyula,

Rosemary has conceded that you possesses expert knowledge in these matters. I'd very much like to hear your expert opinion on whether my test would be effective and definitive.

Regards,
.99