another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366    Reply
#1121 on: May 05, 2011, 06:44:30 AM

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.

BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA)
(confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical
engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their
hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at
least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment
other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via
SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my
rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in
a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was
withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And
the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000.  All culminating in
our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP
INFINITY - and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle,
MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat
disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I
think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Actually I've just gone through this post.  It's actually really interesting.  At least it shows the range of engineers who have seen some of these
claims of ours.  Thanks to Glen for reminding me of this.  Albeit unintended.  LOL.  And NOTA BENE GLEN - NOT AN EXPERT
AMONGST THEM - with the entire exception of Professor Green - who REFUSED to look into the matter further - stating PUBLICLY that the results
were PROBABLY due to measurement errors.  Remember?  That's the same as Poynty's point.  If it weren't quite so sad it'd be funny.

Kindest as ever,
R
Just edited this to get it all onto one page.  Glen's trying to get this thread entirely unreadable.
added

[fuzzytomcat]

  " BUMP " Partial post from Rosemary ...... complete post shown ......
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315070/#msg315070   Reply #859 on: Today at 08:25:04 PM

Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.
.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366    Reply #1121 on: May 05, 2011, 06:44:30 AM

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.
 
BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA) (confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000.  All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle, MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I'll be a "HUCKLEBERRY" ......

ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -

All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY -


FuzzyTomCat


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


RE-PRINT of ORIGINAL

[Rosemary Ainslie]

ROSEMARY'S QUOTE -

All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY -

EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R

[fuzzytomcat]

EXACTLY - NOT ONE EXPERT AMONG THEM.  Do you even know the difference?
R

Yes, I do a Engineer is a College graduate or Expert

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi to whome it may concern   
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/9687/self-runner-ns-coil-pulse-motor-live-video-stream-its-been-going-for-months/msg260131/#msg260131   Reply #523 on: October 08, 2010, 01:43:42 PM


Guys this subject is being 'trashed' on another forum.  I thought I'd just post over some of the arguments against this and my reply. 


If you were to take this argument to its logical conclusion - then - in terms of this a natural diamond would have less energy than an artificial diamond.  There is no more or less potential energy in a lump of pure copper than there is in a mixed aggregate of the same weight.  Nor is more potential energy added to the mix as a result of applied heat or galvanisation or anything else.  Mainstream claim that the energy from mass is from the atomic mass.  It's just that in a refined state - it's likely to be more useable as required. Bear in mind that the galvanic interaction does not compromise the mass of either the copper or the iron.  Theoretically, they'll be there - into infinity.  So.  Also theoretically - if there's an induction process going on in Laser's rig - which clearly there is, then that too could be there for infinity.

But this argument also has to be seen in context.  Laser claims that the rotor can turn with distilled water.  If so, then there is no 'salt bridge' required for the 'galvanic effect' - which is battery related.  It probably just works better with the addition of salt.  Correspondingly, and confusingly, Bill claims that his rig works best if the sand is dry.  In which case one could perhaps argue a 'salt bridge'.  But in both instances one only needs to encase the entire coil in some kind of sealed condition - like a sealed battery - and either the slightly moist sand - or the slightly moist atmosphere around the coil - would make both the sand and/or the atmosphere - a third element in that rig.  Unlike a sealed battery it would never go flat.  That's got to be clean green - and virtually, dare I say it,  'perpetual'.

Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules.  We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.

The truth of the matter is that the concept of a battery supply source also carries the concept of a depletable source of energy.  That much has yet to be proven in either Bill's rig or in Lasersabers.  Frankly I think they're both carving out some interesting history for us all.

Regards
Rosemary
edit.  Sorry the math was out.   I've amended.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules.  We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.


Anyone like to "CHECK" the math shown above in "GREEN"  .......


FuzzyTomCat