another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and guests,

Again we have Rosemary totally unaware of the posting or was it a choice Rosemary made on ignoring the posting that's been asked now the FORTH time and posting it's been answered ?

This important "fact" of which schematics were "EVER" used and documented in any testing and evaluation that needs clarification from the "INVENTOR" of the COP>INFINITY device.

The ramifications if this schematic ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) was used and misrepresented as "NOT" being used for testing and evaluation of any high inductive resistor heating loads over 6 amps it wouldn't be professional although at this point does your reputation Rosemary matter it's fairly well been discredited now anyway.

If there is any error it needs to be corrected there cannot be replicators and verifiers assumptions always made because "YOU" Rosemary refuse to answer any questions that may discredit your unproven "Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing" standard model "THESIS" that only you understand, always tied some how to all your unproven COP>INFINITY device(s).

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318062/#msg318062        Reply #1911 on: April 07, 2012, 10:45:26 AM

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ??   

Is that "ONE" question to hard now .... 

No more blah, blah, blah ..... I'll keep posting this a thousand times just like you do your THESIS crap until you answer the question !!!

CHEERS,
FTC
 

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary deserves a prize all right. I just don't know whether to call it the "MYLOW" prize or the "Archer QUINN" prize. Maybe just the "Ainslie" prize.

At least MyLOW and Quinn grasped the principle of "open source" and "replication."

Remember when MyLOW was trying to get everybody to measure the position of his magnets to the hundredth of a millimeter with a caliper? And when Quinn kept promising to show something that actually worked, that he already had made .... and the best he could manage was a fifth of a turn, then he'd stack on some more magnets, smoke another cigarette, and jump up and down yelling "oy've climbed the Wall!!"

Yes.... The Ains-lie prize. Awarded for the highest ratio of words to actual performance. She does approach COP > Infinity in that area anyway. An entire year of talking and not a bit of new data and not a retraction or correction of any of her many errors and false claims.

After all this time we still don't even know what the "correct" schematic is, and the "inventor" has made no effort to clean up the mess of wrong and misleading information that exists, even in the publications of her own co-authors. And instead of carrying on a productive dialog with "replicators" and testers of her extremely radical claims, she engages in this interminable bloviating and "holier-than-thou" attitude while wallowing in the most incredible ignorance and arrogance imaginable, even more so than Archer Quinn. For months and months and months... and to this day we still are encountering conflicting schematics, incorrect mathematics, faulty reasoning, and contradictory explanations of anomalous data..... and I'm not talking about "batteries that don't run down". I'm talking about the scope shots from the apparatus that indicate either a malfunctioning component or some other unexplained mode of operation. In other words, RAW DATA that conflicts with the reported events of the experimentation.

Rosemary Ainslie has been uncooperative, unhelpful, secretive, insulting, misleading and downright mendacious during the entire history of her "open source" project. In fact I believe that more progress would have been made to this point.... had she not been involved at all.

[TinselKoala]

Look.... Rosemary actually managed to utter one true fact in all that rant above.

And, in any event, I put it to you that you are wasting your time.

It should no longer be necessary to refute Ainslie's lies and mischaracterisations point by point. It is clear that she has severe cognitive difficulties, since she evidently cannot even comprehend what people say in written text or spoken word. She certainly cannot comprehend what an oscilloscope screen tells her.

What is the phase relationship between the battery oscillations and the shunt oscillations shown in this scope shot, Rosemary? Are you achieving heating of your load here, or not?
How is it different from the phase relationship I show from Tar Baby taken from the same points?  (Taken NOT as you mendaciously claim from some other location of your own imaginings.)

(It appears that the forum is playing games with attachments again. I am referring to Rosemary's Paper 2, Figure 8.)

[TinselKoala]

For just one example, she states:

Then.  To get back to more rather glaring evidence of collusion and collaboration between you and TK et al.  You ENDORSED his video where he showed the oscillations taken over the battery and the load.  Had you been an EXPERT â€" in any sense of the word â€" then you would have done better to advise him that he was measuring the 'wrong thing'.  When I pointed this out â€" together with the glaring omission of some required phase shifts, he came back with a video that was even more glaringly inappropriate.  Why did you not point out to him that the phase shifts referred to have nothing whatsoever to do with the signal from the transistor and the load resistor?  IF indeed you are that EXPERT as you're trying so hard to IMPLY - then you should most certainly be explaining how utterly inappropriate was that nonsense.  That TK could ever seriously propose to establish the rate of current flow from the battery based on a product of the voltage across that load resistor and the battery is alarming.  And that he does this with the improbable evidence of perfect ‘in phase’ voltages â€" beggars belief.  Not only are there no phase shifts â€" but what adjustments did he make for impedance?  This is all the proof needed to show that he knows next to nothing about power analysis or that he hopes that no-one reading here does.  And to further compound his generally compounded confusions â€" he then shows us all - a veritable miracle of coincidence in phase shift between that battery and the resistor?  Which would require the direct intervention of God Himself to orchestrate such a remarkable degree of anomalous co-incidence.  Such PERFECT correspondence would exceed the standard model predictions with implications that put over unity in the shade.  And then too.  He continues to qualify this utterly improbable evidence by giving us a second video where he tries to equate the phase shift in line with the voltage across the transistor and the load?  So utterly OFF the subject.  So far from the point as our Cape is from the North Pole.  So distant from relevance as to be laughable.  And yet YOU and HE SERIOUSLY propose that you're EXPERTS and qualified to do any kind of REVIEW AT ALL?

I have NEVER posted a measurement taken "across the load resistor". I monitor the same points monitored by Ainslie and detailed in the video and the various schematics. The mosfet common drains are actually a critical measurement of performance and indeed are monitored in Rosemary's demo video, but are left out... for some reason.... in the papers. They would reveal instantly, for instance, whether or not there was any problem with one or more mosfets in the operating circuit. But the phase shifts I illustrate, and any power measurements I have made, have always used the voltage drop across the shunt (CVR) and the voltage on the battery-- the same locations used in the NERD team's scope shots, math trace calculations, and performance claims. I can show this on diagrams and the actual circuit. Rosemary cannot show anything to support her contentions about my data. Where has she ever shown any "adjustments made for impedance?" Her math traces are straight point-by-point multiplications of the current trace and battery voltage trace NOT DESKEWED or in any other way "adjusted" for impedance... or even the simple RESISTANCE of the current viewing resistor.

The scope shots that I have posted indicate the same "phase shifts" that are shown in Rosemary's shots. The most recent ones are take ACROSS THE BATTERY and ACROSS THE CURRENT VIEWING RESISTOR, that is, the SAME points used for Rosemary's "MATH" traces shown in all her LeCroy scope shots from both papers and in the video.

Rosemary is simply ranting from her usual place of total misconception, ignorance, and mendacity. Instead of showing evidence for her claims she just gets stuff wrong totally.

Anyone can look at her Figure 8 from Paper 2 and see her phase relationships between the oscillations on the CVR shunt, and the oscillations on the battery trace. And anyone can see that Tar Baby's phase relationships from the same points are the same as those. Anyone who understands how to read the oscilloscope traces, that is, instead of the numbers in boxes.

I would be very glad to have anyone _coherent_ criticise my video demonstrations. Tell me where I'm going wrong in the demos and how to make them better. And I know about lighting and steady camera work, believe me, so you don't need to mention those.

Collusion and collaboration? Rosemary, you are paranoid, literally, and yes that is a psychological diagnosis. PicoWatt and I don't know each other, we have only communicated on this thread and one other, and maybe by one or two PMs of little consequence. We just both happen to be right about what we are telling you... collaborating and colluding in disseminating the truth, I suppose.... truth that you can also get from many other sources, all colluding and collaborating. Even the manufacturers of your oscilloscope are in collusion with us.
PW clearly has much more experience than I do in these matters and apparently actually does work for a living, in stark contrast to myself. You really should learn to respect your "elders" who have studied and practiced what you only dream of and preach. I myself get absolutely no compensation for this, in fact I am out several hundred dollars of my own hard-scrabbled money. Any characterisation of me as some kind of paid minion of the Forces of Free Energy Suppression is, once again, another lie and libel on the part of RA.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

That last post of TK's relies on the association of prior claims that were, presumably, not proved.  I have NEVER made any claims about the battery being recharged as a result of that circuit configuration. On the contrary.  We do NOT need that to prove the anomaly of a negative wattage.  Again.  This value is that absurd that it has no meaning at all within any standard paradigms.  However.  I was more than ready to show this to Poynty Point and/or Stefan and/or Professor Steven E Jones.  And right now I'm making sure that we can all evaluate the battery performance in a wholly public demonstration - AS WELL.  Then I, like you, will learn if there is any value at all in that computed 'negative' number.  I simply do not know.  None of us do.  And we'll also be able to test our earlier claim related to COP>17.  And we're more than ready to do this from a 555 signal as from a function generator.  And we intend using both and testing batteries against a control - on both.  That's the first point.

Secondly - I am NOT in a position to evaluate Mylow's claims.  But what I know from my colleagues is that they were never convinced by TK's debunk.  Their opinion was that the 'wire' was superimposed on the film.  I don't know.  I suspect that they both gave up because they were being attacked.  I have NO idea if anyone was there to help Mylow.  But I have LOTS of it.  I have the encouragement of many of you in emails and in personal messages.  And I have my colleagues who are equally committed to these results and to finding explanations for the real and repeated evidence of anomalies.  And I also know that IF I were one fraction weaker than I actually am - the effect of this combined onslaught from these self-appointed commentators - which is just a polite use of the word - would most certainly have dissuaded me from continuing.  Of course it gets me down.  And my family have often requested that I leave this well alone.  But I cannot.  I am compelled to share with you all the REALITIES of these numbers.  And I share that commitment with my colleagues.  These results matter.  They matter in a way that is more important than my health, wealth and happiness.  And I will NOT stop until I manage to prove it.  I would be glad to do a demonstration - provided only that it is publicly and fairly arbitrated.  And frankly if that needs to be shown in a court of law or under the harsh light of a video then I'll do it - either option - AS REQUIRED.

I cannot talk about prior claims.  I only know our own.  And I look forward to showing this to you all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And TK - You seem to object to the number of words that I use in these protests of mine.  They are vastly outnumbered by yours.  And if I add those others by your 'co-conspirators' then they are a mere 'fraction' of your input.  Conservatively I'd say that as a group your contributions exceed mine by a factor of 6.  So.  Don't give me that about 'words'.  You're considerably more verbose.  And you have all of you occupied considerably more thread space than me. 

Rosie Pose