another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

And TK.  What you need to do is explain that absurd video number where you measure the load in conjunction with the switch.  WHY? 

LOL
Again, and always
Rosy

I have tried and tried to explain things to you but it's impossible. You do not know how to communicate. For example....

you measure the load in conjunction with the switch

What are you talking about? The only SWITCH I have ever shown was the one used to switch in and out a brown inductor on a stack of LEDs. The only "load" in that video was the LEDs and the only source was the Function Generator. And you clearly didn't understand it.... so no amount of talk is going to remedy that.... it would be like trying to explain...er.... calculus to a high school dropout.


YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN the answer to PW's question. And YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN why you keep saying things that are clearly wrong, like your assertions about "phase shift". What is the phase relationship shown between the battery trace and the current viewing resistor trace in your Figure 8, Paper 2, which I give as evidence that you are once again..... ignorant of your subject. ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION, and simply stop making these lying assertions without references or support.

[TinselKoala]

And TK as for this...
Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor.  Or so you said in that video.   And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR?  And WHY did you identify it as the load?  And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?

The real joke is this.  You complained that we don't take voltages across the load.  Explain this.  IF YOU DARE.

Rosemary

You are wrong, and I have changed no videos. You can provide a direct link to any second in any video you know. Why don't you support your claims with links and references? My monitoring locations are indicated in the diagrams below, and are the same as yours, and NEVER have I stated otherwise. YOU, on the other hand, have made many errors in your monitor positions. Just watch your video again for examples.
I have never complained that you don't take voltages across the load. I have frequently stated that the common drain voltage is an important bit of information that you omit from your papers... but you DO show it in the video. The common drain voltage is NOT "across the load".
Again, you distort and misrepresent and outright LIE about me and my videos and my work. And you have the idiocy to imply that I might have hacked into your computer. I assure you... had I done so OR IF ANYONE HAD DONE SO you would not be posting here today.

NOTE that the point marked "F" in the figure below is the MOSFET COMMON DRAIN and is the point that you don't like in my data. But.... your objection is invalid anyway because that's not the point I used for the "power " comparisons.... I used the same points as you did-- the points indicated by "A" and "D" in your diagram, and by "CH1" and "CH2" in my diagram.... the SAME POINTS.

[TinselKoala]

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

Taking the last ridiculous assertion first.... you are the champion of content-less verbiage, Rosmary, and many of my posts in this thread are, just like this one, refutations of your ridiculous assertions and lies about me. If YOU would stick to the topic of testing, this thread would be much shorter.... because you have only made a few posts on that topic.

Next.... your "colleagues" are the only ones on the planet who still believe in Mylow. HE EVEN ADMITTED ON MY YT VIDEO COMMENTS THAT I CAUGHT HIM IN THE ACT. And that comment from him is still there, if you want to go look for it.

And finally.... your first bogus point. You have claimed many times that the battery recharges or that something prevents it from discharging, which are nearly equivalent claims in this case. Take a look at the PESWiki article on you, maintained by your co-author, for just one example. It clearly states that your circuit recharges the battery. And of course that was EXACTLY the claim you made concerning the COP>17 circuit: battery recharging by the inductive spike. Which, by the way, I demonstrated and you did not. (I just didn't do it for the running battery, but an external one instead.)

"recharges the supply".......and the batteries are the supply, aren't they?

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and guests,

I am very upset with the administration or Stefan Hartman that gave Rosemary three options on April 5, 2012.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) A specific time frame when Rosemary will do experiments without the function generator including battery draw down measurements and Stefan will give her a new thread at OU with moderation rights.

2) Stefan will lock the threads at OU and ban Rosemary from the forum then Rosemary chooses if Stefan deletes the threads and postings or everything can remain there intact.

3) Stefan locks the threads and post a message to go to Rosemary's BLOG site for all future discussion of Rosemary's circuits.

Her three (3) options he's tired of flame wars, no more on his forum .....

Rosemary lets him know by (?) 12 April how she decides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was to be done by April 12, 2012 and as you can see not a FUCKING thing has been done and Rosemary demeanor is the same avoiding questions, bloviating on her band of hiding juvenile expert collaborators, spitting in the faces of other reputable and knowledgeable Over Unity members with her vial explanations of electronic theory and the fraudulent incorrect cherry picked information supplied to the open source community. 

To have the administrator "TURN AGAINST" every other member at Over Unity and to let Rosemary continue is beyond acceptable ..... and for what ?? To find the truth which has been done now countless times debunking Rosemary or is it visitor and member traffic on Stefans Forum to make money ?? 

The option number one (1) given to Rosemary if any indication of the "PAST" testing and evaluation on the device with a past bogus video, wrong schematics, wrong information mixed with questionable in thousands of postings and authors names collaborators without input on the testing and evaluation done. We are all expected to take the information from the "SUPER TROLL" as correct without exception ...... RIGHT 

Stefan Hartmann's e-mail address  hartiberlin@googlemail.com  what do you all think ?? Let it be known !! 


FuzzyTomCat

[picowatt]

FTC,

I really don't see the need for the use of such language on this or any thread.  I also do not believe that it falls within acceptable guidelines for this fourm.

As MH stated several posts back, I too think everyone needs to cool off a bit.  All should be free to state their case or raise concerns and questions, but I see no need for emotional, angry, or vile disrespect towards anyone.

PW