another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.

[fuzzytomcat]

Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.

Rosemary,

You are so full of CRAP ..... I can smell it 10,000 miles away.

And if this is your attorney .... you have failed again. Looks to me a friend or your son's Jamie schoolmate, nothing but a P.O box   

http://www.privateproperty.co.za/manson-tobin-attorneys-/attorney-22355.htm

Some one in International Internet law might be something to look into.

COP>INFINITY on the Quantum 2002 article device that you got a COP>17 ..... good thing you admitted to having the experimental COP>17 apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities still, how about a YouTube video some photos of it

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I assure you that you've been given the service address of an attorney Glen.  Why would I do otherwise? I'm sure they'll write to you to acknowledge receipt of those papers.  Can't wait to read them.

Golly
Rosemary

[energy1234hope]

Rosie it was so peaceful here before all these lot found out you had your own thread. They certainly came out of the woodwork to put sh*t on you. They managed to shut your last thread down by comment after comment of crap. Wish you the best of luck with this lot.

[evolvingape]

evolvingape,

Clearly you were making an assumption, and it would appear to be incorrect.

Perhaps the first question you SHOULD have asked BEFORE you assumed, was "What is the claim for this drawdown test?", like I did, here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

And Rosemary seems to hint at an answer here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315692/#msg315692

Therefore, you should conclude that this test is not to prove her circuit yields COP infinity, and that we are aiming to test as I have outlined, pending agreement from Rosemary.

Poynt,

You asked for general input to determine reasonable test parameters, I offered some in good faith. If this upset you in some way I apologise.


You replied to them with agreement that the test is not to test the claim of COP = infinity.


I just want to know why you are redefining the claim to declare a winner at 50% over control ?


The claim on record as made by Rosemary is COP = infinity, as everyone knows.


A simple proof of an apparent anomaly is to turn it on and leave it alone, so why are you testing something else ?


RM


www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1314/


Quote: 
In order for the RAT experimental apparatus to be considered the successful victor in this contest, it must outlast the Control by a minimum of 50% more time. This baseline "time" is determined by when the Control batteries reach 10.5V each.


Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.