another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[eatenbyagrue]

@eatenbyagrue: I'm disappointed that you choose not to answer my direct questions from some posts ago. But not really too surprised, ttytt.

What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours.  I am not sure what more I can answer.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, as far as everyone here is concerned, it is your circuit and your team. You're quibbling over semantics.

What does NERD stand for anyway? There is no reference to it whatsoever in your first post in this thread.

NERD TECHNOLOGY IS THE NAME OF THIS THREAD.  If you wish to discuss the RAT circuit then you must do so amongst yourselves.  My own posts ONLY relate to the NERD technology.

Rosemary

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys - was a bit tardy but have now sent a personal message to Glen Lettenmaier detailing a service address.  I'll let you know if papers are served and what it is that he's claiming.

Let's wait and see.  Frankly I'm delighted at his proposed action.  For reasons that I've explained.  It's possible that there may be some cause to counter sue - but I'm not really concerned either way.  I just want that opportunity to defend this matter in Court where I'll be required to produce some experimental evidence.     How great would that be?  And all those experts required to comment.  Can't wait. To defend what's alleged to be indefensible.  What fun.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

This it to notify everyone that I received some information from a Rosemary Ainslie's PM address here, although this is not needed as I posted several times here she will be served personally. I also indicated this would be done in my time frame, not Rosemary's obviously she can't FUCKING read or understand at all. I just want to make my intentions public there is a past history here I'm told when some one had been in this same position with her, and there was a end he didn't see coming or around now to see.

This case I would estimate the time being up to a YEAR to do this properly for a win, and then Rosemary to appeal the verdict against her like the continued nonsense here which I would like to avoid with a strong case against her.

This won't be some half ass attempt like several "COP greater than INFINITY" papers we see with incorrect and false information, that was cobbled together in a couple of days, with errors all over the place in them.

My time is better spent on my web site and the "SCAMS AND SHAMS" page featuring Rosemary and Mylow, and let my heavy weights do their legal work in their time frame.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What, I gave you my calculations, which agreed with yours.  I am not sure what more I can answer.

Hello eatenbyagrue.  I'm reasonably certain that what TK is expecting is an outright endorsement of his traducements.  He explained that libel is defensible if it is proven to be well founded.  I believe you agreed with this as well.  But what he's now asking is that you adjudicate on whether or not he's guilty of libel.  In other words you're to adjudicate - one way or the other on the evidence of my 'mendacity' as he puts it.  Frankly I think he's rather imposing on your legal expertise to solicit some free consultation.  But if you're willing to offer this - then that's between you and him.  For my part - I am acutely aware of how this must embarrass you and I can only apologise.  I suspect that you've engaged here to entertain your interests in science.  Instead of which there seems to be some imposition on you to exploit your expertise. 

Whichever - eatenbyagrue - I am absolutely satisfied that you will get to the heart of the matter.  And if you feel the need to endorse TK's opinion - it will certainly not change my own opinion of you.  I am well aware that there may be a gross error in my calculations.  But I have now exposed that sum to two acknowledged experts - explaining the full circumstances of the test.  And they have both endorsed my numbers.  Yet I may be wrong.  Perhaps I explained it wrongly.  But even then I'm not guilty of misrepresentation.  That value has no part of our paper.  It is absolutely NOT a part of our claim.  It really does  not matter if I'm wrong.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[evolvingape]

I will be satisfied if the RAT circuit operates as I stated in my proposed protocol. If it can provide substantial power to the load for 50% longer than the control in BOTH runs, then it is a winner. PROVIDED that the RAT circuit maintains an equal or better temp profile compared to the Control.

Your proposed protocol as stated is a test to determine whether the RAT circuit will outperform the control circuit by 50%, while dissipating the same energy value at the load, and nothing more.

A test of the claim, which is COP = infinity must be a continual non interrupted run of the RAT circuit. Any intervention by you to stop the test invalidates the results, and does not prove the claim. If the RAT circuit eventually depletes to 10.5V or fails to maintain load energy dissipation it has failed and is underunity.

The purpose of the control is to verify that a continual DC signal to a known load will dissipate the energy available in the battery bank to power the circuit in a given time. This being the time interval between time zero and when the battery bank drops to 10.5V or when the power available to the load is no longer sufficient to maintain the stable temperature at the load and the temperature drops, whichever comes sooner. 

Depends what you mean by "efficient". If you mean how much power is delivered to the load compared to how much is wasted, then nothing is more efficient than a DC source connected directly to a load. Rosemary's circuit is at a disadvantage compared to the Control, simply because there are MOSFETs dissipating (wasting) power that is NOT getting to the load.

If that's not what you mean, then please explain.

.99

Both circuits, straight DC and Switched are 100% efficient and can be nothing less. Work done + losses = Energy In. The ratio of energy dissipated at load to heat "wasted" in the components is irrelevant at this point. Both will be different because they are different circuits with different components.

The claim is that the RAT circuit will be overunity fully replacing the prime mover energy which was stored in the battery bank at time zero, and that the circuit is COP = infinity in which case it will continue to dissipate energy at the load resistor for ever.

The only measurements we are interested in is the time it takes for the control to use up it's energy, and the time it takes for the RAT circuit to use up it's energy, while an identical load energy is being dissipated in both circuits continually.

The efficiency comparison result of both circuits will be calculated by:

RAT Runtime / Control Runtime = Efficiency Ratio

The load resistor will dissipate heat at a known measurable rate and therefore you will be able to calculate how long it will take at that load to consume the energy available in the batteries. The difference in runtime between the two circuits is the efficiency ratio of those circuits compared to each other.

To prove the claim the RAT circuit must continue to dissipate a known load well beyond what the battery'y bank is capable of providing. At an efficiency ratio of 5 you can suspect it might be overunity, at 10 it is likely to be overunity, at 100 you can be pretty sure it is overunity, at 1000 you can pretty safely say it is overunity, at 10000 yeah looking good, at 100000 still going...

See ?

RM