another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

He was letting you make the decision as to what batteries can be used. I think it is a courtesy to you from him.  But if you havent tried these 2ah batteries yet Rose, then we cannot assume that the circuit will work to your specifications for sure.

It is your call really.  Its your baby.

But what if it doesnt work for them with these 2ah batteries? Then we are at square one, with your approval be satisfied with the results by suggesting that the batteries will work. that will be the story afterwards.

Mags

Magsy I've answered this.  I'll repost it. 

And Guys, I see that the preferred battery is being discussed.

I will need to talk to some experts about this and possibly even our manufacturers.  My intention is to find those that can reliably generate a strong current flow in line with it's ratings.  When I've found such I'll post details of it here.  My hope is to get these donated again.  It's all in the interests of open source and I'm reasonably satisfied that those batteries will be well advertised.  So.  Hold your horses.  I'll see what I can come up with.

Unless one of you lot can do this for me?  Or in conjunction with me?  Either way.  I think we should look into all options.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

I was not objecting to the discussion. Only the fact the tone of his 'challenge'.  I've addressed that too.  But so has Poynty.  LOl

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

LOL TK,

I see this now.  My open admission of an math error requires a public retraction of all claims made on this technology as it represents a severe felony intended to defraud the public of their money.  While Glen Lettenmaiers theft of an entire paper represents a minor infringement of copyright and requires no retraction at all.  The more so as this minor infringement was only managed on the representation of affidavits to the Scribd authorities that the paper under question represents his own work exclusively.  And then.  Come to think of it.  He's denied the claims published in that paper.  Even more cause not to retract it.  Else people would start assuming that he's principled.  God forbid.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Your "open admission" of a math error? Do you mean when you said your "calculations may have been a tad out" without specifying which ones, how they were "out" and what the corrected values are?

No, that's not a retraction or an open admission.

To refresh your memory, you are STILL CLAIMING that your circuit delivered 25 million Joules to 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. And this is more than a "tad out", it is in fact "out" by a factor of something like SEVENTY FIVE TIMES, and the conclusion, that your battery didn't contain enough energy to do it, is FALSE. And since you are still making the claim.... it is a LIE.

Now let me see you admit these things, and THAT will be a proper retraction.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Your "open admission" of a math error? Do you mean when you said your "calculations may have been a tad out" without specifying which ones, how they were "out" and what the corrected values are?

No, that's not a retraction or an open admission.

To refresh your memory, you are STILL CLAIMING that your circuit delivered 25 million Joules to 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. And this is more than a "tad out", it is in fact "out" by a factor of something like SEVENTY FIVE TIMES, and the conclusion, that your battery didn't contain enough energy to do it, is FALSE. And since you are still making the claim.... it is a LIE.

Now let me see you admit these things, and THAT will be a proper retraction.

Is this your opinion?  Tk?  It's very interesting. 
With all my love,

Rosie Posie

[TinselKoala]

No, it's your claim, Rosemary. Once again:

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.

True, or not? Which parts are wrong, how are they wrong, and what is the correction?


IS A JOULE REALLY A WATT PER SECOND?