another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well I'll be a "HUCKLEBERRY" ......
ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -
All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY -
FuzzyTomCat

EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R

[fuzzytomcat]

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314302/#msg314302     Reply #725 on: March 01, 2012, 06:57:34 AM

Rosemary,
where is the circuit diagramm of the 555 timer test ?

Did I miss this ?

Please post again the links to it and to your latest PDF papers...
Thanks-


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314353/#msg314353     Reply #728 on: March 02, 2012, 02:06:48 AM

Harti,

Again.  The circuit is per out schematic included in our paper.  I'll see if I can download again.  The differences are ONLY in the applied signal.  Not from a function generator - but a 555.  And

there is only 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2.   Do you get it yet?  If not, then let me know.  If you want a circuit diagram of a 555 - there are many available on the internet.  They all work - with varying

levels of efficiency.  THEN.  Where you see 'load' RL1 - just picture - in your mind's eye - that we've got a battery operated solder iron in place of the element resistor that we reference in our

paper.  And OBVIOUSLY the shunt resistor.  This is still 0.25 Ohms ... I think.  Actually - it may have been 0.2 Ohms.  Can't actually remember.

I'm not sure that I ever did download the waveforms.  And I'm not about to wade through those multiple pages of 'flamed' threads to find them.  I do, however, have some downloads where this

was tested from our own batteries.  I'll try and find them.   

About our papers.  I have sent you copies of these per email.  Have you lost these?  If so, again.  Let me know.  I'll send them again for your private perusal.  I've been advised NOT to publish

these here until such time as they're published as reviewed papers.  Which is immanent.

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96114/    circuit schematic for Harti.png

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314419/#msg314419    Reply #735 on: March 03, 2012, 01:42:19 AM

Rosemary.it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer,otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to yourcircuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.

Also your 2 PDF files did not contain any 555 circuit, just your old outdated circuit with thefunction generator and the ground loop and measurement problems...

Also no battery status tests .

For a real test you need to see the status of your batteries before and after the tests....


So try to run these tests, document them in detail and then come back here...all other postings without doing new tests are just wasted time...

Did you yet met GotoLuc in South Africa ?
Maybe he can help you setup the measurements the right way.
He also knows how to post it to youtube.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people just cant read .......

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg309442/#msg309442  Reply #40 on: January 09, 2012, 03:09:25 PM
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766   Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus (PDF - download)


Quotes from Stefan Hartmann - ( owner OU.com - Moderator )

Rosemary. it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer, otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your circuit and how it was driven ?

Also your 2 PDF files did not contain any 555 circuit, just your old outdated circuit with the function generator and the ground loop and measurement problems...

So try to run these tests, document them in detail and then come back here... all other postings without doing new tests are just wasted time...



FuzzyTomCat

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry.  It was a duplicate post.
I deleted it

Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, I'm posting this again because Glen Lettenmaier is trying to get this post out of public focus.  The trick is to dominate the page with any and every irrelevancy in order that you pass over any significant claim.  I can't do this repeatedly - but hopefully this will help.

He can't manage an original post so he simply borrows what he can from wherever he can find it.  What a horrible man.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.
.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And then this last bit.

Now.  You tell me why the only thing more unpopular than me is this technology.  Because I cannot understand it.  Poynty has gone to great lengths to assure all and sundry that it's based on measurement error.  So has Harti.  Yet neither of them are able to show where this error is.  Or where they've defined the source of the error I am able to assure them that this has been dealt with in our paper.  They both know what's in those papers because they both have copies.  And ALL our detractors actively discourage anyone at all from trying this themselves.  And when those such as Groundloop actually start exploring aspects of this - then Poynty rather insultingly cuts in to insist that his own circuit variant be tested.  When Schubert tries to simulate it Poynty does NOTHING to advise him on the required transistor positions.  When genuine interest is getting sparked then EvolvingApe goes to some considerable trouble to discourage ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL.

I cannot explain this Flux It.  But here's the thing.  Both Poynty and Professor Jones are on record.  They'll give a prize for proof of over unity.  So.  On that basis we can 'legally' demand an engagement.  And guess what?  No-one's engaging.  And this  - as you pointed out -  is NOT rocket science.  I can prove this by demonstrating the circuit on a one to one.  Or I can prove it on a public demonstration.  In the latter case - then I would require academic approval that the test would be definitive.  Because it will cost me in time and money to organise the required controls and the required supervision.  I KNOW they'll find reason to dismiss this notwithstanding.  But I also KNOW that academics are more intellectually honest.  They WON'T.

Dear God.  What more can I do?  Do the 555 test to waste more time?  Argue grounding issues that have been comprehensively addressed?  Argue small variations due to our shunt's inductance - when this is so marginal as to be ridiculous?   We're not talking fractions of a watt.  We're dissipating in excess of 120 watts. 

So.  Again.  You tell me what's going on.  Because I really do not know.  I only speak with some considerable authority - and I need only point to the many threads on this technology and its variations - to show you all that there seems to be some overriding need to discredit me - or the technology or BOTH.  And from your reaction to Ape's post - then CLEARLY - their efforts are more effective than even I realised.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary