another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

All your posts seem to about proving yourself right, rather than getting to the truth.  It is all about what you have said before, blah blah blah, told you so, etc.  Nobody cares if you are vindicated or not, and only a very narcissistic person would fail to realize this.

People care about the truth.  And if you care about free energy, you would work on trying to prove Rosemary right rather than trying to prove her wrong.  The world is already full of free energy devices that do not work, we do not need another one.  Try to make it work rather than make it fail.  Maybe you can come up with an improvement.  So what if it is only, say, COP=4 rather than COP>17.  Work on making it COP>17.  That is what I am going to do.

It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.

Fuzzy

[eatenbyagrue]

It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.

Fuzzy

Then you are not helping.  Free energy does not need more naysayers.  The whole world is full of you people.  You are not being clever or original.  You parrot what 99.99% of the world's educated community already insists, that you cannot get more out than in, that fundamental laws of the universe do not allow such things, that controlled experiments are needed with "proper scientific methods."


Well I can tell you, I am sick of these proper experiments and proper scientific methods and controls and measurements.  What have they ever gotten the free energy community?  Nothing.  Every device ever tested by "proper" methods has turned out to not produce energy.


So I say put an end to these "tests" and "physics formulas" and "maths."  It is time to engage ourselves with the power of positive thinking and pure human energy and willpower.  That's where the secret of overunity lies, and we can start right here and right now with this clever circuit by Rosemary.

[Magluvin]

It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.

Fuzzy

See folks, they will spend years and years bashing Rose. They will buy cameras for her. They will build false circuits, claiming that they are replications. And for what?

"That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.   

Well Kitty, You will have to bare the burden of truth also to make your claims..

In fact, you would have to build the circuit to spec, get all the recommended equipment, and show just as much data, and more, just to prove your claim. And get that new web camera rolling while your at it. Hey, it was your great Idea to do so. Hypocrite? No?


Otherwise, if you cannot uphold your claims to the standards that you expect from Rose, then what does that say about your claim? Hypocrite comes to mind. Lazy? Or just 

So until you have lived up to your own standards, your muttering is, well, just muttering. ;]


I think that is all for now.   

Mags

[poynt99]

Rosemary, some points that require clarification:

1) We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation.

Please specify what is meant by "an identical oscillation" and anything that my be implied.

1.2) The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required.

How much is sufficient? Maybe you should reference a real number?

2) We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.

Please specify what is meant by "equivalent results" and anything that may be implied.

3) Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.

So you wish to test at a power at or below 50W, ok. What do you mean by "out of control"?

4) Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.

4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.

I would suggest that new batteries be purchased, and that their amp-hour rating be no more than 2 amp-hours (sealed lead acid batteries are available down to 0.8 amp-hour). This way each test run should only require a couple of hours or so to complete.

5) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source. This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output.

I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

6) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.

I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

9) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.

Please, for the record, state what your claim is for this battery drawdown test.

Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

[Magluvin]

I would suggest that new batteries be purchased, and that their amp-hour rating be no more than 2 amp-hours (sealed lead acid batteries are available down to 0.8 amp-hour). This way each test run should only require a couple of hours or so to complete.


Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

In order to have an accurate replication, you or anybody will need those silver oxides Rose used.  Arent we always told that if we are going to replicate a claim, that we should try and not introduce any changes in order to achieve the same results as the original device? Or even to prove it to be a fake, or mistaken claim?

I might have been like, wellll, I dunno, if you had said 12ah or 20ah. But 2AH  na, not even close.

And your assumption that it would take a couple hours or so to complete the test using the 2ah batteries, is just that. You are assuming. But you say it like it is fact.

And the only way you would know that for sure is if you have done a full blown replication with all the goodies, so on and so forth. just as much as Rose. Plus all of the tests that you have requested through the years, as they are important to your case or you would not have posted them. Right? 

Just sayin.  And in the nicest way. 

Mags