another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

"BUMP"

Obviously Rosemary doesn't get it even when spelled out in the Quote below and is a done deal ..... the evidence is shown by me in "COLOR" even a child could understand.

Rant all you want Rosemary everything to and including e-mails from Scribid, IEEE, Tektronix and others implicating you with nothing but proof and facts ...... not Rosemary's fictional delusions.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314745/#msg314745   Reply #791 on: March 07, 2012, 06:29:21 PM

Sorry to the three readers, I'm here to give Rosemary the "PRIZE"  she so deserves and demands ....

No no no .... not one of money, I do not yield to false Over Unity demands!!!!

One of acknowledgement !!!

Rosemary Ainslie has won the most prestigious of all and will be featured this month at the grand opening of http://www.OpenSourceResearchandDevelopment.org this month !!!

She will have her own folder in the Over Unity Scams and Shams !!! Rosemary will have every document in existence from her beginning starting with the four (4) Patent Applications she made as the "INVENTOR" of electronic circuits until the NERD circuit today, including forum postings, e-mail correspondence, Rosemary's self made news articles and Quantum article plus forum postings and blog excerpts.

SO ...... congratulations Rosemary on you having the longest running fraudulent Over Unity scam going for over ten (10) years and the well deserved "PRIZE" you are going to get like it or not you "WON" !!!!

Well all .... don't miss the grand opening of the new NON Profit "Open Source Research and Development" site which includes a 24/7 "LIVE" broadcast feed w/ chat room http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment ( not a forum ) we will be featuring devices from the inventors or producers eventually and hopefully from around the world.


FuzzyTomCat

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Where did you "admit" to a miscalculation in the quote? Don't you realize that your "miscalculation", when corrected, INVALIDATES YOUR CLAIM? Are you admitting then, that your claim is invalid?

Good. We've finally gotten somewhere. I expect you to make a clear retraction, in so many words.

And where do I encourage Stefan to ban you? I want him to make you TELL THE TRUTH and ADMIT YOUR ERRORS, for a change. Banning you would be too easy.

You so wish this TK.  Our claim is detailed in our paper.  That has nothing to do with anything about battery duration or battery draw downs.  The ONLY battery claim that I'm prepared to make - definitively - is when there's a test designed for this.  Then I'll engage.  Do you EVER read anything other than your own posts? 

And yes.  It is INEVITABLE that the kind of posts that you and Glen Lettenmaier are posting are designed to wreck this thread and then get me banned.  Do you really think that no-one realises this?  Especially when your reliance on these techniques have managed it in the past?  IF Harti bans me from this thread - then it will be clear evidence that NONE OF YOU actually want to explore proof of over unity.  Because that is what we claim.  And it's based on MEASURED EVIDENCE ONLY.  NOTHING TO DO WITH BATTERY PERFORMANCE.

Again
Rosemary

[eatenbyagrue]

Nowhere do I detect an answer to the questions I have asked about your calculations and your statement that a Joule is a Watt per Second. But presumably you mean to say this:

"YES, I stand by my claim and my calculations as presented in the quote. And a Joule is a Watt per Second."

Is that a fair statement of your position, or not?

Come on, she obviously meant that a watt is a joule per second.  With all you guys bashing her all the time, it is an understandable mistake, as it is stressful to try to defend one's work against people who just want to bash it.


Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it?  Just let her experiment in peace.  I get it, you do not like her invention.  I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure.  But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And just to get some sanity back into these altercations.  Here's the thing.  It is ENTIRELY thanks to this 'flaming' that my previous claims about this are validated.  LOL.  There's always some exploitable value even in this level of traducement.

But guys - we most certainly DO have an exploitable technology - and it most certainly IS showing evidence of an INFINITE COP.  And I will most certainly do that battery draw down test to prove this.  But I need to wait for the publication of our paper.  Not too far away.  And then I hope to conclude this thread with - a posting of both papers - and a live streaming of that final battery draw down test.  And it will, most certainly, include the protocols defined by our experts - academic or otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary seems to think that her "miscalculation" is trivial. Let me break it down, since the gist may have been lost by this time.

First, she calculates the energy content of her batteries based on the amp-hour rating:

I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

Nothing too objectionable here; so there are something over 10 million Joules available in the batteries if fully charged.

Now.... let's look at her calculation of the energy used in the test.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.

The definition of a calorie, in Joules. 4.18 Joules PER calorie. Fine so far.

We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.

Now we begin to run into difficulty. Start temperature "ambient" is 16 C. Water amount "a little under" 900 grams. Call it 900 for the sake of the calculations. It took 90 minutes to get to 82 degrees from 16? Or was the water heated up faster and then held at 82 degrees for some time until 90 minutes had elapsed? In an insulated container, I hope. Let's not quibble about whether you can have liquid water at 104 degrees in an unpressurized container, or worry about the fact that 104-82 is 22, not 20. So we've taken 900 grams of water from 16 degrees to 82 degrees in 90 minutes, then from 82 degrees to 104 degrees in a further 10 minutes. OK? Ok.

Joules = 1 watt per second.

This is completely backwards and wrong. One Joule = one Watt-second. One Watt = one Joule PER second. And here is one of the major conceptual errors that has nothing to do with "miscalculation" and which MUST be understood by Rosemary if she ever hopes to get power and energy calculations right.

So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.

Now the fun begins. So. Do the math. You've raised 900 grams of water by 66 degrees C. That takes 900 x 66 = 59400 calories, or 4.18 x 59400 = 248292 Joules. THERE IS NO "PER SECOND" to be put in here; the time element does not enter in at this point. It took about 250000 Joules to heat the water in the first stage.

Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.

Same mistake again, plus another one. You now have taken 900 grams of water at 82 degrees and raised it by 22 degrees to boil at "104" degrees, for a further input of 22 x 900 = 19800 calories or 19800 x 4.18 = 82764 Joules. Again, the time does not enter into the calculation. And by using "88" instead of 22 in your calculation you are adding in the previous quantity.... so when you do your final addition below you are using the same quantity TWICE.

Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Adding the CORRECT two values, you should have gotten 331056 Joules, which is the energy required to raise 900 grams of water from 16 degrees C to 104 degrees C (without boiling).
900 x 88 x 4.18 = 331056.... a third of a million Joules, compared to your figure of 25.6 MILLION.

All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

As we now can clearly see.... the claim is WRONG, by a factor of about 75. In other words, not only did the battery not outperform its "watt hour rating"... but the battery could have performed THIRTY or more identical tests before it showed any discharge by your no-load voltage measurements.

A mere "miscalculation" or a profound misunderstanding of mathematics and power measurements? Let the readers be the judges.