New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[TinselKoala]

That is outrageous all right. I too have my own disagreements with Aaron, but I hope he pursues this through legal channels and sees that the person making the threat is brought to justice. The fear that a threat like that engenders makes it a serious matter, even if the poster wasn't entirely "fuck them all dead" serious.


On the Ainslie matter: we of course recall that she made the same claims of "benefit" and vetting by BP for the experiment described in the retracted manuscripts. The Heat power dissipation at the Load Element Resistor was far less than the wattage supplied by the battery, when the Vbatt was measured correctly. Ainslie, Martin, and everybody else agrees with that. Right?

So how can the earlier, single mosfet circuit possibly make _more_ heat than supplied by the battery? Removing the "Q-array", miswired or not, turns the NERD circuit into the Quantum-17 circuit! If the FG is used for the input, that is. The Vbatt and Vcsr measurements were in error, severely so, for the NERD experiment. How does simply removing the "Q-array" suddenly remove these errors, since they are measured in the same manner in both experiments? Of course it cannot. The heat power vs. battery power results claimed by Ainslie _have already been shown_ to be wrong, and removing 4 miswired transistors isn't going to change that! She thought that the device with the 5 transistors, miswired, was _better_ than the Quantum-17 circuit!
Think about what this means, already. Disproving the claims of the NERD circuit, which was supposed to perform _better_ than the Quantum-17 circuit,  has also already disproven the battery power vs. thermal power claims made for the Quantum-17 circuit. Just as in that circuit, most of the mosfet heating was coming from the Q1 turning on when the Vgs went over +4 volts, the same thing is happening here, just without the complications of the Q2 oscillations.

The "oscillations" that are shown in the present set of scopeshots from FTC, in the other thread.... aren't the same kind of oscillations as the Q2 oscillations at all, and they produce a mosfet ON time that is much longer than the actual ON signal from the FG or 555 timer source, because of the high frequency of the signal! The IRFPG50 is an outrageously SLOW mosfet and requires a large gate charge to operate! Check the data sheet!

[Farmhand]

it doesnt have to be a closed system @farmhand.if we go over 100% its a nail in the coffin for the thermo laws.just gota prove it.

No it won't, an open system that is gaining energy from the environment and producing more output than "we input" breaks no laws
and is common.

Any system that radiates heat, sound or vibration ect. out of the system is not a closed system.

A closed system such as the Universe itself does tend towards equilibrium. Most of the time !!!!!

However that is not always the case or the Universe would not exist as it does today.

Things get relative to the point of view but the only way to see it is on a Universal level/scale, the " Universe" meaning everything that exists, period.

None of us will ever hope to understand  the true workings of the Universe as a whole, period.

The 2nd L.of.T. simply exlains what people have observed in certain "pseudo" closed systems.

The only real closed system is the Universe itself, nothing is ever added and nothing is ever taken away, period.

The fact that energy is conserved is a good thing and works for us in many ways, learn to use it and get over the Laws thing.

Forget the laws, then use logic and common sense and you will see the same "laws" are evident.

The wording is convoluted and is not meant for the average person.

The universe is a constant in the fact that nothing is ever added, because there is nowhere for things to be added from,
and nothing is ever taken away, because there is nowhere to take anything  to.

Nothing does not exist. By definition Nothing means No thing and something that is "No thing" is non existent. [ oxymoron ]

If anybody can show me a truly closed system (other than the Universe), I would be surprised to say the least.

So come on, no fancy play on words.

Can anyone show a truly closed system "on the bench" ? Or not ?

And I mean an "actual" closed system not an "effectively" closed system, or to put it another way a "true fully closed system".

Cheers

P.S. If Rosemary or anybody else for that matter showed a setup that output more energy than was dissipated as input to it by it's operator,
Or a system showed more out than we put in then the "extra" energy can only be coming from outside the system or from the "materials" the
device is made from, which is fuel. Therefore no Laws would be broken or could be broken, Some thing cannot "come from" no thing. That is impossible.
The term "Coefficient of Performance" allows greater work output than work input by "us" the "operator" in some systems like refrigeration, no laws are broken.

There is No "O.U." or Over Unity, that involves something from nothing, there is only the utilization of energy more efficiently, over 100% efficiency is possible
and already happens commonly.

It's time these things were accepted and understood, I think.

..

Even if rosemary did show over 100% efficiency she would still not be showing anything that would break any laws,
that is because any extra energy would have to come from the break down of the device itself via (transmutation or molecular dissociation) 
or from the environment or surroundings. So no Over Unity that breaks any laws.


...

[TinselKoala]

"Even if rosemary did show over 100% efficiency she would still not be showing anything that would break any laws,
that is because any extra energy would have to come from the break down of the device itself via (transmutation or molecular dissociation) 
or from the environment or surroundings. So no Over Unity that breaks any laws."

Actually, if you read her retracted manuscripts and can suspend disbelief long enough to swim through her ridiculous jargon and false data, you can find her statement of just this same idea. She claimed, without the slightest shred of evidence, that mass in the circuit elements was being converted to energy, and she even mentioned Einstein. Of course her entire data set was bogus, error and mendacity, and she would have no clue whatsoever as to how to go about actually testing her absurd proposal of mass-to-energy conversion. Actually.

But we are so far beyond that pile of garbage now... we have an _entirely different_ pile of garbage -- quite literally -- to deal with now!! Stay tuned.... or rather, tune over to the new Quantum-17 thread,  for the next thrilling chapter. The Adventures of Little Miss Mosfet, Episode Zero.

[Pirate88179]

"Adventures of Little Miss Mosfet"  (Or mosfet, depending on Rose's spelling)

That is a very good one TK.  Thanks to you, I now have to clean some spilled beer from my keyboard but, it was worth it. I needed the laugh, thanks.

Bill

[TinselKoala]

"Adventures of Little Miss Mosfet"  (Or mosfet, depending on Rose's spelling)

That is a very good one TK.  Thanks to you, I now have to clean some spilled beer from my keyboard but, it was worth it. I needed the laugh, thanks.

Bill

Heh... save some laughter for later, you will be needing it, I guarantee it.