another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Rosemary also uses the negative battery power "measurement" as justification to claim COP infinity, not just the erroneous battery capacity and energy calculations in the quote you're posting.

I wouldn't hold your breath TK waiting for an admission of error on those calculations etc. 

[TinselKoala]

Of course she won't defend her position re the calculation, since it's indefensible. And of course she can't correct and retract her claim of 25.6 million Joules, because then... poof! Just like a blown mosfet, her overunity disappears in a puff of... 104 degree water.

You and I both know that the correct way to test this device is to determine the power _drawn from the batteries_, not delivered to the load,  by the device in the normal manner using electrical tests, and then test the _same load_ using straight DC power at the same level,  preferably from a good, filtered, adjustable DC supply, not a battery. The time-temperature profiles can be determined to see if the device heats the load any more efficiently than a DC source.
Then, take the batteries "recharged" by the device after a suitable run time heating up the load and the mosfets, and some normally charged batteries, and put them side-by-side with the same kind of load, like a 25 watt light bulb... and see which light bulb goes dark first. That will tell you if the batteries have charged up or not.

So you start with a batch of six batteries. You charge them all with a standard "smart" battery charger until the unit says they are fully charged. You write down the no-load voltage of each battery after a suitable settling time. Or you don't, it doesn't matter.
Then you RANDOMLY select three of these batteries and set them aside unused. You take the other three batteries and run the Ainslie circuit with them for a while, heating up the load and the water and of course the mosfets. Then you take the Ainslie batteries and the set-aside batteries, hook them up to light bulbs, and watch. You don't even need to do any measurements... just watch to see which bulb goes out first.

Repeat several times, conventionally charging first then randomly assigning the batteries each time.

Does this sound like a test designed by a free energy debunker, designed specifically to fail Rosemary's device?

May  I recommend HandyAVI ? It is a neat application to take time-lapse videos, motion-detection, slow-motion, frame time logging, and other neat things with a webcam. You can download a free evaluation version to try it out, but the program isn't free... it's quite reasonably priced though and the developer responds to emails about problems and questions.

[poynt99]

TK,

Yes agreed, that would be one of the easiest, most accurate ways to settle this. The trouble is, Rosemary is obtaining a negative battery power "measurement".

In theory, based on one of her claims that the batteries recharge, and never discharge any measurable amount, we could forego the control all together, and simply run the apparatus until either the device runs considerably beyond the rated capacity of the batteries, or the batteries die. But that brings us back to the contentious calculations error issue again.

[TinselKoala]

So use my suggestion... no calculations or even measurements are required to test the "infinite COP battery recharging" claim.  Just start with six full batteries, run three on the Ainslie circuit for a couple of hours-- or to be fair, since the draw really isn't very high, for a couple of days, then compare it to the unused batteries with the light bulb test. Monitor the light bulbs with HandiAVI taking one frame every ten seconds or every minute until one of the bulbs is too dim to see.

Want to bet which bulb it will be?

(And how can a calculation error be contentious? Is there ANYBODY anywhere outside of Rosemary's fantasy world that will endorse the calculations as quoted, and provide justification for their endorsement? Do you remember my One Thousand Dollar challenge to Mylow? I offered him a grand, cash, on video, in public, if he would get two University engineering professors -- real ones that I could check --  in his area and of his own choosing to view and endorse his motor in public. I am on the edge of making the same offer in this case, just about that calculation and claim of 25.6 million Joules.... is there anybody who will come out in public and say that her numbers are right?)

[poynt99]

TK,

I don't think anyone has the courage to state publicly that the calculations in that quote are correct.