another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Bubba1]

Bubba - For heaven's sake.  Watts represents the average unit of power delivered or dissipated - every second.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

No, Rosemary, watts represents the average unit of ENERGY delivered or dissipated - every second.

[poynt99]

Dear Poynty Point,

HOW NICE IS THIS?  You've either actually corrected your own preferred terminologies or you've corrected that document.  Either way, delighted to see that you're no longer simply referring to PIN AND POUT.  Spare me the need to reference those multiple forum examples where this abuse was open for the entire world to read.

Now.  Are we going to reference your document?  If so then may I propose that you email me a copy of this?  Otherwise can we perhaps reference our paper?  OR BOTH.  Take your pick.  But I must first be able to read your document. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

No changes or corrections made at all Rosemary. The document file is in its original form still dated 2011-06-18. You obviously never bothered to read it.

If you can't open a PDF file, I can't help you. This file I've already posted several times in several different places, even on Reply#52 here.

[CuriousChris]

@Wilby, I answered the maximum I could without getting caught in a downward spiral, the one poynt99 seems to be stuck in with Rosemary.

The fact is, the cct Rosemary proclaims to have an impossible COP of infinity, is a very simply switching cct of which there are millions of in use everyday. Switchmode power supplies like the one you have in the pc you are using use the same basic design, much more refined of course but the similar nonetheless. Rosemary is to have us beleive there is something about her cct that doesn't present itself in those millions of others, that somehow her combination of values makes her cct achieve the improbable. She then proclaims that we should all believe her without actually doing proper tests herself. Although she claims to have done so.

Rosemary has now answered more of the criticisms in which she confirms she has not performed the tests to completion. Without driving the batteries substantially beyond their stated capacity there is no proof of anything. The purpose of the water is purely as a heatsink there is absolutely no need (at this point of testing) to take the water to the boil or any stated temperature. The entire purpose of the test is to prove that batteries last well beyond their stated capacity given the current draw. They should in fact never go flat if the cct indeed displays unity or greater.

On the point of replacing batteries with capacitors, I was aware that Rosemary claims to have tried that, and that it failed that test. that is why I immediately proposed that if she was unhappy with that she should do the 2nd test, the battery to exhaustion test.

Rosemary then tries to make outragious claims such as mere mortals can't prove OU. Why are we here then? If we cannot prove that, then whats the point.  What is the purpose of overunity.com?

There is also a major unknown in the cct. The signal generator. It introduces power into the system, it can't not. This part of the cct could be replace with some simple circuitry say a 555. or something more complex if the needs state that. but my point is there is an unknown which can easily be removed and thus accounted for.

This thread is very circular. one group of people saying you need to provide certain proofs, the other person and her supporters saying they have, then ignoring the first groups protestations of incompleteness of testing.

If Rosemary can prove the circuit can consume in excess of the batteries stated power rating (in amp hours) by a significant factor without going flat, then I am happy to join the host of believers. but she needs to answer other criticisms of her cct as well, such as the potential for the signal generator to influence the cct.  Until then, I like the others who think before they leap will continue to doubt her claims.


If you consider an attempt to support someone who has valid concerns which should be answered, As trolling then so be it. Rosemaries arguments are circular and she is very condescending. Trolling is probably not the right term and for that I apologise. but it is certainly improper.

If Rosemary fully believed she had some of such huge import such as a device with infinite COP (her words not mine).

I AM NOT CLAIMING AN OVER UNITY RESULT.  What we're CLAIMING is INFINITE COP.  And I have most CERTAINLY NOT refused to do any REASONABLE requests for tests.

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/1725/  Why then has she not submitted it to a scientific journal for peer review. From there she could get the expert opinion she seems to want. Why submit it to this raggle taggle bag of hopefuls, many of whom don't understand even basic science?


CC

p.s.

Power is energy over time, To give it a name we call it watts (after James Watt), they are intimately connected. You cannot have power without energy, so you cannot have watts without joules, though of course the names could be different. If you exert 1 unit of energy (call it a joule) for a period of time (say 3600 seconds) you have consumed 3600 joules, or 1 watt hour.

To put it another way, we could say we have consumed 3600 joules of energy, but this statement gives us no indication of the time period this consumption occurred, was it over 1 second, 1 day, a year? 1 watt hour is simple, its an average of a joule for an hour. We could just as easily said "1 joule per second for an hour", but watt hour is easier. If we tried to say 1 joule hour. confusion arises. is it 1 joule per second for an hour (3600 joules), or was it 1 joule over an hour (1/3600 of a joule per second).

[david lambright]

hi rose, dont worry, very soon you will be vindicated. i know you are correct and there is more to physics than we ever thought possible. we as a human race, if it can be imagined it can be DONE. dont be discouraged! stay in touch

[poynt99]

CC,

Don't fret too much over the function generator. It is actually dissipating some of the power off the Drain (through capacitive coupling). It is serving only to provide a positive V_GS bias to cause the oscillation. If you were only interested in having a constant oscillation (as opposed to a burst oscillation mode which Rosemary is fascinated with), then the function generator could be replaced with a simple variable DC supply.

This was covered in great detail by me several months ago.

.99