another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[hoptoad]

snip.. BUT PLEASE NOTE. Power is NOT watts. It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME. snip...

Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 Ampère is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Curious Chris

This last post of yours - like Alice's disappearing feet - is losing all relevance to our paper and to our claim and is a gross misrepresentation - not only of our intentions in promoting this technology - but in what I have said about this technology.  'Curiouser and curiouser' is I think how Alice described it.  And since it is ENTIRELY about our claim - I think it would have better been addressed to me.

Here's a list of where your observations err - Curious Christopher

We do not have a simple switching circuit.  Unless it is a simple feat to leave a battery disconnected while upwards of 5 amps is generated through a circuit?

Far from not wanting others to test this circuit I am MOST ANXIOUS that they do.  Which is why we wrote those papers.

We have tested those batteries way beyond their capacities over a period of 12 months without any measurable discharge of voltage from those batteries and with NO recharge other than from the circuit itself.

I do NOT want you to believe it.  Nothing could be further from my interest.  We want academics to evaluate it.

It is UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS to demand that we separate a current from it's source and then expect it to continually circulate through a circuit into perpetuity.  Yet you demanded that as PROOF.

The signal generator has been replaced with a 555 and delivers an entirely UNINTERRUPTED CURRENT FLOW FOR THE DURATION that the negative signal is applied to the gate.  THIS HAS BEEN TESTED AND SHOWS PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS AS RESULTS FROM THE FUNCTION GENERATOR

Frankly I'd far rather that you NEVER believe our circuit works - for personal reasons.

I am NOT condescending.  I am FRANK

We MOST CERTAINLY HAVE submitted the paper to a reviewed journal.

And I have explained why I've rescued this thread.  It is to CHALLENGE POYNTY POINT FOR HIS PRIZE that he claims is on offer for an overunity result.

Can I impose on you to simply stay out of this?  Your posts are getting increasingly irrelevant.

Regards,
Rosemary 

[CuriousChris]

@poynt99

Coming late to the party has not, done me any favours I know.

But I am not sweating it its just a glaring cause of conscern that could be so easily accounted for.

I don't know how a variable DC supply could provide signal required to cause the cct to oscillate unless you are relying on the capacitance and inductance of the cct to make it self oscillate, the variable DC supply only providing the 'bias'. but this would be very difficult to control or even specify. If you are talking about making the variable DC supply part of the oscillator as in the voltage 'varies' due to a feedback mechanism.

Whatever mechanism is chosen to initiate and maintain the oscillations, it needs to be accounted for.

@David

Upon what basis do you give your support to Rosemary? Do you have some insight you could share with us. or is it just wishful thinking? You are correct physics will continue to amaze us for as long as we exist. but that's not an excuse to believe something someone say just because we want to believe it.


CC

[MrMag]

Hahaha, I thought this thread was closed a long time ago. Here it is a year or so later and people are still trying to get rosie to understand what a watt is. It's also hard to beleive that she hasn't been able to get any "Acedemics" to review her circuit yet. I wonder why that is??

Keep up the good work rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 Ampère is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad

Well put hoptoad.  And thanks for this.  In all that toing and froing - I missed this.  lol.

Actually I've just looked it up.  There's an outside chance that P can indeed represent watts per second.  But we used this in our paper and were advised to amend this to - Energy.  But who cares?  The point is that those POUT and PIN terminologies have been bandied around the place with reckless imprecision -  hopelessly ambiguous.  It ALWAYS needs definition.

Take care, and glad this has amused you.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie