another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

For the following reasons, I don't see the need to post all my simulations again:

1) They've been posted in this thread to some degree, and in your "demonstration" thread also on this forum. There is also a document posted that goes through the measurement analysis. So it's all here already.

2) No one here is asking for these simulation posts, except you. And you've already seen them all.

I'm sure the 3 readers here are much more keen on seeing my actual test results, as they'll be much more convincing than the simulation.

Is Schubert 'no-one'?  You saw him trying to put this together - unsolicited.  You know he would not have bothered if he was aware of your earlier efforts.  So?  Surely the trick is to rally?  Poynty Point?

Perhaps if you could just provide a link to that 'document of denial' - it would be something.  Then anyone at all can decide whether or not to look into this any more deeply.  It would be appreciated - I'm sure.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Sorry - I put in the wrong reference. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - apologies for repeating this post but there's an important emphasis on this paragraph.

And guys,

Just in case it's not clear WHY this negative wattage number is significant - it's this.  We apply standard measurement protocols to the amount of energy delivered by the battery against the amount of energy returned to the battery.  The delivered energy is represented as a positive value as the amperage flow is greater than zero.  The 'returned' energy is represented as a negative value as the amperage flow is less than zero.  The two values are then summed.  IF Kirchhoff's rulings are RIGHT - then we should NEVER get a result that is anything less than 1.  In other words the amount of energy delivered will ALWAYS exceed the amount of energy returned.  And under ideal circumstances we should be able to PRECISELY relate that difference to the amount of energy that is dissipated - as heat or motion or both - over the circuit components.  What should NEVER happen is that the amount of energy returned exceeds the amount of energy delivered.

The minute this is evident - then we're into a new ballpark.  It means this.  Either our STANDARD measurement protocols are essentially FLAWED.  Or it means that there's an alternate supply of energy on the circuit.  There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Now.  There are those of you who read here who will recall that we've done this test where we measured 'apparent' gains resulting in some value greater than Unity.  But until we configured this circuit we've NEVER seen values that the energy returned actually EXCEEDS the amount of energy first delivered.  And that's why this new generation of our switching circuit is so very intriguing.  And why it's so deserving of 'review'.

The amendments are highlighted.  I'm trying to stress the fact that we have NOT made a measurements error.  We've only used standard protocols.  Therefore.  Again.  Here's the situation.  Our standard measurement protocols - all those sums related to conventional power analysis MUST EITHER BE FLAWED  -  OR -  there's an alternate energy supply source.  And it's the existence of an alternate energy source that's the theme of the 2nd part of our two-part paper.  And that alternate energy source is proposed to be in a field that is extraneous to the atom - but is responsible for binding all coalesced matter.  In other words - among other things - it's also a 'binding' force.   

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Guys - apologies for repeating this post but there's an important emphasis on this paragraph.
The amendments are highlighted.  I'm trying to stress the fact that we have NOT made a measurements error.  We've only used standard protocols.  Therefore.  Again.  Here's the situation.  Our standard measurement protocols - all those sums related to conventional power analysis MUST EITHER BE FLAWED  -  OR -  there's an alternate energy supply source.  And it's the existence of an alternate energy source that's the theme of the 2nd part of our two-part paper.  And that alternate energy source is proposed to be in a field that is extraneous to the atom - but is responsible for binding all coalesced matter.  In other words - among other things - it's also a 'binding' force.   

Regards,
Rosemary

Yes, Rosemary, your measurements are flawed... or rather, your understanding of what your are measuring and what to do with the measurements is flawed.

I'll keep on posting this until you deal with it. Either tell us it's correct, or it's wrong. If it's wrong, correct it and explain what's wrong.

[cite] Rosemary Ainslie[/cite]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.

For the other two readers: Note that this calculation contains Rosemary's ENTIRE CLAIM OF EXCESS BATTERY LIFETIME AND RECHARGING within it, in addition to including at least two major conceptual errors involving power calculations.  A Joule is NOT a "watt per second" and until you realize that, and what it means, you are ALWAYS going to get the wrong answers, Rosie dear.

DO THE MATH.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

LOL - I don't think any of us can accuse TK of 'under'... scoring a poynt or two.  I"m afraid that this lonely little objection of his is likely to continue - ad nausea.  Clearly Harti's happy to see his contributions.  And that could possibly be because Harti is also rather hoping that TK will flame this thread to death.  In any event - TK has obviously been given permission to do his damnedest - and there's nothing we can do about it.  The only thing that I know - for a certainty - is that if I actually start answering TK then we'll be dragged into detours and back roads - that the purpose of this thread will be forever bypassed.  LOST.  And that would be a shame. 

There's an unspoken editorial bias that results in a marked diminution of the wider interest in any forum.  It intrigues me that this bias has now been detected on another two forums that are losing their readership at an alarming rate.  I'm sure Harti checks his stats.  So do we.  I would suggest that general interest is also getting more and more alert to some agenda that allows a total breach of forum guidelines in 'special cases'.  When that happens, regardless of the objectives of either forum - the readers feel insulted.  One expects a certain 'objectivity' to be allowed.  For those of them that read this - then take note.  There are only two threads on this forum that unequivocally show proof of over unity.  Fortunately, thus far - this is the only one that is SERIOUSLY attacked.  But that both threads are even tolerated speaks to a more balanced approach which is always a comfort for our readers. One hopes that the 'balance' will be maintained.  Neither subject are allowed elsewhere.  I can't help but wonder why.  It's intriguing.

Regards,
Rosemary

Yes, Rosemary, your measurements are flawed... or rather, your understanding of what your are measuring and what to do with the measurements is flawed.

I'll keep on posting this until you deal with it. Either tell us it's correct, or it's wrong. If it's wrong, correct it and explain what's wrong.

For the other two readers: Note that this calculation contains Rosemary's ENTIRE CLAIM OF EXCESS BATTERY LIFETIME AND RECHARGING within it, in addition to including at least two major conceptual errors involving power calculations.  A Joule is NOT a "watt per second" and until you realize that, and what it means, you are ALWAYS going to get the wrong answers, Rosie dear.

DO THE MATH.

As I said.  It's all very intriguing. 
Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, at the risk of boring you all to death - perhaps I should remind you what our ACTUAL CLAIM encompasses - lest you're inclined to believe any biased 'representations'.  The claim is fully defined in our papers.  Nothing outside of what is written in those papers applies. 

We have measured proof of INFINITE COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE.  This, by definition, means that there's every evidence of some energy supply source that has not been factored into classical analysis of electrical power delivery.  Not only that - but we have evidence of a waveform that is not explicable in terms of the standard model - in any context at all.  This requires a revision of our measurement protocols.  And it requires a revision of the properties of current flow that may not be entirely in line with conventional assumptions.

IF our claim also related to the performance of batteries - then we'd have to evaluate their chemical performance exclusively.  That is outside the scope of the authors' expertise.  And therefore battery draw down rates are NOT a part of our 'official' or 'written 'claims'.  However, since this is pertinent to the evaluation of efficiency - we are MORE THAN HAPPY to do any test required to evaluate this as well - with the caveat that such tests will be considered conclusive.  We anticipate a marked improvement in battery performance over its rating.

Meanwhile - what we're looking at is the potential to deliver significant levels of energy that appears to come from the circuit material exclusively.  This also needs full experimentation and evaluation.  Because IF this proved to be correct, then we have found a 'source' of energy that is highly exploitable.  And this, if anything, is an understatement of its potential.  Which is why I propose that competing interests would see MORE CAUSE to discredit us than even LENR.  Which is also why I run such enormous risk in posting this on Open Source.  And the reason that I continue to do so is because Open Source has the indubitable merit of 'spreading the word'.  This is the more so when the technology and I are both subjected to continual 'attack'.  Because most readers align themselves on one or other side of a confrontation.  And that level of engagement is preferred over indifference.

It's just a pity that one has to deal with polarised opinions.  But if that's the cost - then I'll pay it gladly.

Regards,
Rosemary