another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[gravityblock]

Rosemary,

You are truly your own worst enemy in all of this.  When this discussion comes to an end,  I'm sure most will agree it was a death by suicide.  Anyways, please take care and Good Luck (I'm being sincere when I say this).

Gravock

[TinselKoala]

Come out and fight, Rosemary. We are all waiting for you to justify your "calculations".

Where did you ever get "Joules = Watts per second"? I'd love to see your reference for that howler.  Maybe that's where the IEEE people decided to trash your submission.

And why don't you realize that your calculation implies that you are raising a DIFFERENT 900 grams of water EACH SECOND..... that is, your total energy calculation goes awry when you multiply the Energy required to raise the 900 grams to 82 C...... by the time it took.  This is absurd... but this is what your calculation says.

Then... you actually go even further and count the same inflated energy TWICE in your "addition". In the second ten minutes, you use "88" as the degrees of temperature rise to 104 C. But the water was ALREADY AT 82 degrees... you only raised it a further 22 (not 20 or 88) degrees, so this is the number you should have used. Then, of course you compound the error again by multiplying by the ten minutes.

We'll be charitable and let the "a further 20 degrees" (from 82 to 104) go as a typo.

Come on..... explain these calculations to us.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

And here we have a sample of Poynty's real genius which is to POYNT at anything and everything that is ENTIRELY irrelevant.  As ever he uses those tangenital markers... or is that tangential?  Can never remember.  Either way - those 'poynters' of his are rather too nominal.  They are, to sign posts, what the little finger is to the hand.  Which is both small and dispensable and partially crooked.  I won't include Bubba's comments - because that would really confuse us all.  I get it though that she's trying to pass herself off as a 'man'.  Whatever next?  A man would never be that obsessed.  Unless, like Poynty and some others who post here - they're in drag.  Therefore?  I rest my case.    I'm not sure who else commented.  Mainly because I really don't care enough.  But girls.  Thank you.  I've had my first real laugh both at my own adventurous reach into elementary mathematics and your own transparent need to refer to this and nothing else.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If I didn't know better - I'd be inclined to think that you didn't like me any more than you like our technology.  Fortunately I know this isn't the case.

Anyway lest I entirely lose my 'poynty point' - for sheer want of size and structure - then let me re-iterate.  Or rather. Let Poynty 're-iterate'.  It's a refreshing example of his 'courtesy' which is also lacking in 'parts'.

TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!

And here's my answer.  AGAIN.

My dear Poynty Point,

.   If you're referring to the battery draw down test - then may I refer you to my 'conditions'.
.   If you're referring to a demonstration of the tests included in our paper - GLADLY.  Just nominate the venue.
.   If you're referring to that absurd test related to 'lights' and what have you - then 'NO'.

But only because a far more significant variation has been done.  And it resulted in the a single row of LED's STAYING LIT.  And draw your own conclusions from this.  They none of them will conform to standard prediction.

Kindest regards, Poynty Point
From your very own
Rosy Posy
AKA (also known as) Rosie Pose.

[TinselKoala]

Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

That's all you have to say about it? Come on, Rosemary.

Is your math CORRECT, or is it WRONG? Can you find ANYONE who agrees with your calculations? Is your main conclusion based on your math, or not? As I have shown, when the math is done correctly, you actually used about one twentieth the battery capacity during your test, an insignificant amount that would not result in a no-load voltage drop in a good lead-acid battery. Your conclusions are based on incorrect math..... AND SO YOU MUST RETRACT THEM, or show how I am wrong. No tests are even necessary until you resolve this issue about your math.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I've just seen Gravock's and Derrick's posts.  Those MATTER.  Guys.  Apologies.  Let me ASSURE YOU that I am very well aware of the fact that that analysis was skewed.  Had I taken the trouble to read the entire post I would have deleted that part.  I ONLY referenced the entire post because I saw manifold reference to history repeating itself - as well as an EXAMPLE to show how thoroughly this battery draw down test had been referenced.  Poynty CLAIMED that it was the for the first time that I'd offered this.  Here was the PROOF that it was not.

In any event.  You are right to doubt my lack of expertise.  I don't think I've EVER tried to pass myself off as anything more than an amateur.  And as such I am certainly well qualified.  I'm an amateur in the true sense of the term as I LOVE PHYSICS.  In fact, I distinctly recall advising Derrick of this in some considerable detail.  My knowledge - if I have any - relates to some insights that are related to Dark Energy.  That is my only interest.  And these experiments are only related to the proof of this field model.  I have not got the required skills to develop this as required.  Which is PRECISELY why I am open sourcing it - in the first instance.

Kindest regards,
Rosie.