another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.    Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.

Was thinking   

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.     
Seems fair enough.

Mags

I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary Ainslie, you did NOT produce free energy or achieve anything other than making yourself look foolish.  This is good news, since you no longer need to piss away your food stamp money on worthless contraptions.

I am recommending "Physics For Dummies" for you to read.
www.amazon.com/Physics-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470903244

You do not understand even the most basic concepts of physics.  You don't know how to take proper measurements either.  A free energy machine would NEVER need batteries to run.  Just the fact that your contraption uses batteries means that it does not work.

Hello again replaced.  Delighted to see your input.  IF you are right - then CERTAINLY our PROPOSED EXPERIMENT WILL FAIL.  Which means that you will be VINDICATED.  And I'm sure you'd enjoy that.  And I'm reasonably sure that you're enough of a scientist to KNOW how important is experimental evidence.  So.  Let's see what some actual tests demonstrate.  Then neither you nor I need to gainsay those results.  Or are you rather frightened that those results will prove you wrong?  Don't be alarmed.  If popular opinion is anything to go by - then you're in really good company.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

And might I add (AMIA) - AGAIN - (AMIAA) - that I do not, nor ever have, subscribed to Free Energy.  I don't even know what could be meant by free energy.  No such thing. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Your experiment will fail, so running it is absolutely pointless.  I know this ahead of time due to the laws of thermodynamics. 

First tell me which thermodynamic equation is wrong, because if the equations are correct then your experiment will never work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_thermodynamic_equations

I'm not sure that I'm about to oblige you in a long discussion about anything at all.  If you are interested then read our paper.  If you are simply sharing your opinion - feel free.  If you think that I'm about to engage in any kind of discussion with you - then disabuse yourself. I'm already in a discussion.  And that's with Poynty and with Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones.  They need to evaluate some experimental evidence.  Failing which they need to cough up with some rather desirable properties related to their prize.  And that prize is NOT for FREE ENERGY.   It's for proof of over unity.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Guys,

I'm going to assume that I've been given permission to post extracts from our second paper - directly to this blog.  Not sure, as I've not heard from Stefan.  But I'll risk it. If it's frowned upon - just know that it's intended to advance the standard model.  Which should keep our purists happy.  And it's only intended as an offer of our own modest concepts - which may, or may not be appreciated and may or may not warrant further discussion.  In the unlikely event that it gets there - then hopefully we can continue this on another thread.

Before I get there - just a quick reference to MileHigh who, rather endearingly, assumes that if it's in black and white - and if it comes from his own key board - then it's most certainly 'CORRECT'.  His opinions about his own 'knowledge' is refreshingly untrammeled by any need to impose logic on any proposal that he makes.  Whereas, in point of fact, and as Poynty describes it  - 'he errors'.  All over the place. 

My dear MileHigh.  That 'signal terminal' as you've taught me to refer to it - from the function generator - includes a ground terminal.  The TWO TERMINALS ARE NOT CONNECTED other than through 3 or 4 optional signal signal settings - including, among others, a square wave output signal.  THAT's the signal we apply.  Now.  Follow my lead.  The connection is from that ground terminal - through approximately 1000 Ohms of resistance and wiring - then BACK through about 50 Ohms of resistance in the signal terminal and then to the GATE OF Q1.

IF you are proposing that the current is flowing from the battery supply to that that negative terminal and then back through to the positive terminal - effectively breaching upwards of 1050 Ohms of resistance - then the resulting waveform from that signal generator would show a voltage upwards of 70 volts.  At the risk of merely using the evidence of the waveform itself I'll take the trouble to post YET ANOTHER DETAIL of the ACTUAL WAVEFORM taken at the GATE of Q1.

ALTERNATIVELY - IF you are proposing that the current from the battery flows onto the negative terminal and then skips that circuitry in the signal generator and simply 'flies through the air' onto the signal terminal - then it would need to breach all that plastic insulation coating those terminals.  And I suspect, that we would then need to see some evidence of arcing. 

IF you are assuming that we have NOT taken careful measurement of the heat that has been dissipated at the element resistor - then think again.  Our paper refers. IF the significance of this ELUDES YOU then NOTA BENE.  If the temperature of the load resistor exceeds 70 watts or thereby - then we have recorded the temperature as it relates to boiling point of the water in which that element resistor is immersed.

Why is it that I'm the ONLY one who is managing any kind of valid argument?  The only comfort, at least, is that both Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones have run out of both objections and excuses. Which means that they both need to OFFICIALLY WITHDRAW THAT PRIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S JUST A RUSE AND WILL ONLY EVER BE CONSIDERED AS QUALIFYING FOR THAT PRIZE AS APPLIED TO THOSE DEMONSTRATIONS THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN DISPROVE - IN ADVANCE.  Anyway.  I'll try and download that detail and hope to hell that you understand the significance of this.  Then I'll try and close up with a final argument.  And then I'll post over that paper.  And then HOPEFULLY - I'll be able to get on with my life.

Kindest regards MileHigh.  Your writing style is superb.  Your arguments are BASELESS.
Rosie

Edited
changed you're to your.  I'm getting seriously OLD.
added '...TO THOSE DEMONSTRATIONS THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN DISPROVE - IN ADVANCE.'
and then again added 'AS QUALIFYING FOR THAT PRIZE AS' ostensibly to make the point clearer - and actually to emphasise this.

[TinselKoala]

So now temperature is measured in Watts.

And we see another uninterpretable oscilloscope trace that shows neither a 3.5 percent duty cycle nor an integration of an instantaneous power curve.

Rosemary, you really are incompetent. In just the last two pages, you have erred : in the definition of energy and power; the units of each; the math relating Watts, Joules, and time; how to get power from current and voltage traces; how to interpret a simple algebraic equation; what "C" means in reference to a capacitor; and now you have temperature measured in Watts.

And you have accused me of being an incompetent experimentalist. Please... I have posted YT videos of many of my experimental sessions looking at your various claims. Please... point out EXACTLY where I have exhibited incompetence in my experimentation. Give a link to the particular experiment and the time. If you cannot support your accusation of incompetence with factual references, you really should withdraw your characterization.