another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Glen Lettenmaier,

If you didn't understand me the first time round - hopefully this will do the trick.  I am MORE than happy to defend both my good name and this technology in any court of law.  I will assist to the extent of giving you an address where you may serve your papers.  And I would be delighted to have this matter finally resolved.  More so as it will likely need some experimental proof of our claims.  And frankly - I LONG to put that evidence forward.  It will be a triumph for over unity. And that will be wonderful.  Even if I'm obliged to pick up the 'tab'. 

Franky I'm enormously grateful for this.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose. 

[PhiChaser]

Still reading this thread...
Still waiting for the NEW MATH to come out (sigh)...
Nobody is out to get you Rosemary, they are just tired of trying to talk sense to you.
You refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong in your calculations yet your entire 'claim' rests on those same numbers. Does that make sense to you?
It doesn't make sense to me... Then again, neither does your circuit although I said I saw a mobius loop in it the first time I saw it. I have seen the term 'groundloop' several times in this thread now... Hmmm...
The whole joules per watts per second question? Was there a rebuttal I missed?? Another series of calculations somewhere??? Funny how some of those questions just keep getting ignored over and over and over...
It does make me laugh though!

PC

[MileHigh]

I'm just going to switch Rosemary's circuit over to a relatively straightforward physical model in case it gives some people insight.  This may help some people understand how Rosermary's claim is a nonsense claim.  It's amazing how Rosemary clings steadfast to the point of view that her measurements with the DSO are beyond reproach.  It's just as equally amazing that she refuses all other proposed measurements when a good scientist would welcome alternative measurement proposals.

If the battery draw-down test is ever done then it will prove Rosemary wrong.  So she is walking quite confidently into a big surprise for her, and not a surprise for just about everyone else.

Here is the physical model for Rosemary's latest setup:

We can equate voltage to water pressure.  This makes good intuitive sense, because many people already think of voltage putting 'pressure' on a resistor to force current through the resistor.

We can equate current flow to water flow, simple enough.

Lets' say one pound of water pressure per square inch is like one volt.  Let's say one liter per minute of water flow is like one amp.  I know that I am mixing English and Metric units but what the hey.  Let's assume that Rosemary's setup has six batteries for 72 volts.

So, imagine a long metal pipe, say about 30 feet long, and there is a valve at the end of the pipe.  The pipe then empties into a big bucket.  The valve is controlled by a solenoid that is controlled by a 555 timer.   The valve opens very briefly then closes, and this takes place at 60 cycles per second.   The pipe is being fed by a water pressure source at 72 PSI.

You can envision something like this:  You hear the solenoid making a 60 Hz buzzing sound, and you see that when the valve opens there is a brief spray of water that goes into the bucket.  It's almost like one of those pulsing shower heads.

Whenever the valve closes there is a brief spike of high pressure in the pipe due to the 'hydraulic shock' effect.  That spike of water pressure is due to the fact that when the valve is opened, the water starts to flow.  The water has mass and therefore it has some momentum.  It's the momentum of the moving water that causes the spike in water pressure when the valve closes.  This should be sounding familiar to some of you.  This is equivalent to the inductance in the wires in Rosie's circuit and the associated voltage spike.

So, with a long pipe of water fed by a water pressure source at 72 PSI, and a chattering solenoid-driven actuator valve letting the water flow into the bucket in pulses, most people with basic common sense know that the bucket will slowly fill with water.

That's a very good analogy to what is happening in Rosemary's circuit.  Little bursts of current flow through the MOSFET switch when the "valve opens."

So if you can transpose your common sense about water flowing through a pipe to your common sense that's telling you that current is flowing through Rosemary's circuit - then you have solved the puzzle.

Again, I must stress that this is not a "coincidence" or a "pie in the sky" idea that sounds similar to what Rosie is doing, it is literally a very good approximation of what Rosie is doing.

You know the bucket is going to fill up with water and you know that Rosemary's circuit is going to drain the batteries.  There is no 'COP infinity,' the REAL WORLD is what is real.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello PhiChaser,

I'm entirely satisfied that these questions would be resolved in that definitive draw down test that we're proposing.  And I've planned to invest there too - both in the time and the money - to get this proved conclusively.  I'm not sure that any 'opinion' can be considered relevant when it needs first be tested experimentally.  Meanwhile, the only new math that's required is perhaps to resolve how we can sustain a temperature over a load without the input of further current supply.  If this is true then I rather suspect that our utility suppliers have been over charging us.

And I'm not sure that Glen Lettenmaier is not 'out to get me'?  I would have thought that he was.  Unless of course I've misread those copious cut and paste posts of his.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Still reading this thread...
Still waiting for the NEW MATH to come out (sigh)...
Nobody is out to get you Rosemary, they are just tired of trying to talk sense to you.
You refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong in your calculations yet your entire 'claim' rests on those same numbers. Does that make sense to you?
It doesn't make sense to me... Then again, neither does your circuit although I said I saw a mobius loop in it the first time I saw it. I have seen the term 'groundloop' several times in this thread now... Hmmm...
The whole joules per watts per second question? Was there a rebuttal I missed?? Another series of calculations somewhere??? Funny how some of those questions just keep getting ignored over and over and over...
It does make me laugh though!

PC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello MileHigh

I'm afraid I've not bothered to read your post as I suspect you're punting some physics that is now outdated by our experimental evidence.  But for the record - I intend having that protocol evaluated by some experts in power engineering.  And I will, most assuredly, rest on their advices.  Unless - of course - you yourself are an expert in power engineering.  In which case you too must disclose your full name and your accreditation.

Kindest regards MileHigh.  I'm always intrigued by your persistence.  It nearly matches my own.
Rosie Pose - eo ... as you put it.