another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Cloxxki - If its burden of proof you're looking for then maybe it should be in that the batteries outperform their watt hour rating?  And  we MOST ASSUREDLY prove that.  We also PROVE that there is an energy supply potential in the material of the circuit components themselves that has, heretofore, been somewhat neglected.  IF indeed that claim is valid - then, theoretically - we should be able to enhance efficiencies WELL beyond nuclear efficiencies.

I modestly propose that this may be a good start.

But actually Cloxxki - I think this technology of ours is already outmoded.  What Rossi has got in his E-cat is way more than enough to meet our energy concerns.  I am only trying to focus the attention here on the the agenda that flirts behind every hopeful claimant.  It's led by the Poynty's of this world.  Who knows?  Instead of feeding some pack dogs their daily kill - we could actually get round to discussing science.  I know that this small departure of Poynt's is a FIRST.  Hopefully he'll keep to the argument - in between those noisy complaints he makes against my intelligence, lack of comprehension, madness, delusions and whatnot.

Kindest again,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Thank you for responce Rosemary,

You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.

A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...


You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)


SRM.
         

[Cloxxki]

SRM, you got it.
COP 17 is too easy an example even.
I wonder which is the lowest number for every given input and output media that would be considered loopable.
COP 3? If you had it, could you loop it? Battery power in, heat out. Have a steam fanatic build the ultimate steam-to-EP generator. With Stirling sub-circuit to suck the last bit of energy out of the steam. Super insulated systems with aerogel. I bet a true COP 2 (could be simulated) could be looped with a bit of useful work being done.
Thinking of cars and the most basic HHO on demand. If you get only get COP (or Faraday's limit) x1.5 , a few percents of you engine power goes to the wheels. The rest goes to a huge alternator, sucking up >90% of output, to be able to send back in the full 100% needed. A supercar engine of 800bhp would be loud, and make very few miles to the gallon of water, but it would net a decent city car's performance. I'd totally accept that as OU. A loud, water thirsty engine that barely gets a small car going. Seriously.


Rosemary,
e-Cat is great, and I tend to believe this or similar technology is a possibility. There's bound to be some matter on earth that's just not settled on the lowest energy level, just like not every rock has fallen off it mountain yet.
e-Cat will not win the OU award money though, as far as I remember the rules?


Until we all have a $500 e-Cat securing our household power supply for years on end, all the power companies out of business, there is reason to keep researching. e-Cat need to be prodeced also. There may be cleaner and cheaper power out there still. It may be wind or solar.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thank you for responce Rosemary,

A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...

You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)

SRM.

Hello again Schubert Reiji Maigo

Just a small point.  I have difficulties addressing people by their initials.  Fact is I have difficulty addressing anyone at all by a pseudonym - which is the preferred convention on these forums.  I'm sort of compromising here - but is your name Schubert?  And then can I use that instead of your initials?  Just a small thing.  But it would save me a good 5 minutes embroiled in this ridiculous internal debate every time I answer your posts.

In any event.  Your points are entirely valid.  But there are a couple of downsides to our own technology that needs to be addressed.  We have only generated upwards of 100 watts.  IF we are to reach significant levels to take this technology to application, then we would need to prove that we can produce mega watts - as does Andrea Rossi.  To do this we need to generate a voltage across those transistors that, in turn, have a tolerance measured in the 10 000 volt range.  Thus far - they're not available to the market.  And if we used any transistor that does not have that intrinsic body diode - then we would need to embark on an entirely new path and explore the efficacy of applying external diodes.  Again.  It's probably doable.  BUT.  It would involve me, personally, in yet more experimentation and I have very little appetite or interest in this side of things.  More to the point.  I have also 'run out of budget'.  But even more to the point is that my interest is in 'thesis' which is my only overarching obsession.  Frankly - experimentation bores me to tears.  Which is where I kept hoping that all you talented experimentalists would take over the question and develop the required. 

Which is NOT to say that there is no merit or indeed, no 'need' to get familiar with the thesis.  You see.  Unless the thinking behind this energy is more fully understood - then we are all trying to make our way in the dark.  Just stabbing at possibilities.  Nothing actually understood.  Not an easy way to progress a new science that clearly NEEDS to be progressed.  What we have managed is to take existing proof of Dark Energy and locate this dark 'matter' in a 'field'.  But 'field' theory has never been fully developed or explored.  It has been mathematically JUSTIFIED by our string theorists.  But their math is obscure - even to qualified mathematicians.  And their reliance is on a fixed and immovable 'structure' rather than the highly charged highly mobile structure that we require in terms of our magnetic field model.  Hopefully, in due course, these questions will be addressed.  In fact I'm reasonably satisfied that this will soon become the full focus of our new physics.  ether - has already hinted at this.  And by his chosen 'nom de plume' it's likely he realises that this is the aether energy that was required by Tesla - and indeed - many of you here.  But that 'thinking' is considered eccentric if it is not incorporated into the standard model.  Which is where our own small contribution may have assisted this general drive.  Because we rely on this.  There is no marked departure of our proposals from KNOWN physics.

For some reason that is possibly better understood by Poynty - there is a neurotic frenzy to deny this.  BUT to deny it requires the outright dismissal of the thesis, the experimental proof of the thesis and the rather PUBLIC denouncement of my qualifications to comment.  The attack has been at all those levels.  And since I cannot personally take this product to significant market application - then I haven't minded that much.  UNTIL NOW.  When I realise that EVEN IN THE FACE OF ROSSI'S remarkable breakthroughs - these efforts in DENIAL not only persist - but they persist effectively.  I REALLY assumed that, for once, our 'nay sayers' would TAKE NOTE.  They haven't.  They're still at it.  And I now intend to challenge them ON THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS - that over unity AT ITS LEAST is ACKNOWLEDGED.  And I'm NOT equipped to argue Rossi's technology.  But I'm overqualified to argue my own.  Which is why I've revived this thread.

I do hope that's made it clearer.  If you - or anyone at all - wishes to progress this technology of ours - that may be a very good thing.  As Cloxxki says.  Any progress will only improve the situation.  But I - personally - must pass.  My mission now is to challenge our nay sayers on their own grounds and as it relates to our own evidence.  You have, many of you here, all presumed - for far too long now - that there's no proof of over unity.  This is wrong.  We have AMPLE proof.  I intend making you all aware of that fact.  That unity barrier has indeed been breached.  In fact it's a broken artifact that needs to be housed in a museum.  It has absolutely no further relevance except as an interesting theoretical constraint imposed - for too long - on our science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity. As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP. You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home. At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.