another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Rosie it was so peaceful here before all these lot found out you had your own thread. They certainly came out of the woodwork to put sh*t on you. They managed to shut your last thread down by comment after comment of crap. Wish you the best of luck with this lot.

The crap you are seeing.... look at where it comes from. Ainlsie's ridiculous math errors, her untenable claims about her junk circuit, her misinterpetation of what her fancy scopes are showing, her threats, her contradictions of what people tell her directly .... all of it COMING FROM HER is crap.


Do you see the "drain" trace on her oscilloscope trace? Except for the noise bands, those mosfets are OFF and not passing power to the load. When the oscillation is happening, they are, but much less efficiently than if the oscillation wasn't there.
The DRAIN of a mosfet in this kind of circuit is HIGH... that is, at or near the battery's positive voltage.... when the load is OFF and not carrying current. The DRAIN of the mosfets will go LOW... drop considerably below battery voltage... when the mosfet turns ON. What you are seeing in those oscillations is a mosfet -- likely only one in the Q2 stack--- turning on and off rapidly due to the FEEDBACK that's ringing around in the circuit due to the lousy layout and all those stray wires and their inductances and capacitances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIDnjmPjW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA

Sorry about the tone of those videos.... I was embroiled in a discussion much like this one... the builders at Energetic Forum eventually  became so frustrated with Rosemary that she was banned under most acrimonious circumstances there and NONE of the enthusiastic builders and experimenters who believed in her at first could confirm her claims about overunity performance of that circuit (the "Quantum Magazine" circuit.) It's very frustrating to have to do this kind of remedial education with people who "think" they know it all but are mostly wrong.

This little fact caused no end of confusion for Rosemary and Err-on and still does, apparently. It is at the root of her early mistake, the COP>17 farce, where her timer was putting out a 97 percent ON duty cycle instead of the 3 or 4 percent ON as she claimed. She was thinking that HIGH voltage at the mosfet drain meant her circuit was ON !!

Does she still think that? From looking at her published scope trace and listening to the "explanation" of the presenter.... I think she does.

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys,

I think you all need to change directions here.


Rosemary has indicated her Quantum 2002 article has been updated from a "CLAIM" of COP>17 to a incredible COP>INFINITY and is willing even to show it in court if need be.

The Quantum magic device has -

(1) IRFPG50 MOSFET
(1) 555 timer circuit on a separate dc battery power supply from the load inductor.
(1) fly back diode across the load inductor

It doesn't need all those mosfets in what ever wiring configuration, every circuit has been used now, there's only so many in Rosemary's NERD RAT examples Q1 / x5 or the Q1 / Q2-Q4 .   



So what say you ..... the Quantum 2002 article COP>INFINITY up-grade, just dust it off Rosemary and lets go !!!!

[TinselKoala]

Rosie it was so peaceful here before all these lot found out you had your own thread. They certainly came out of the woodwork to put sh*t on you. They managed to shut your last thread down by comment after comment of crap. Wish you the best of luck with this lot.

Why don't you REFUTE some of the "crap comments" that are coming out of the woodwork? Just show where and how FuzzyTomcat is wrong. Just show where Powercat is actually endorsing Rosemary like she says and like HE DENIES. Just show where I am wrong in any of my assertions. Show where MileHigh is wrong in his suggested test. Show where I am wrong in the test I suggested.

Build and test Rosemary's circuit FOR YOURSELF, then come back and talk about crap.

Or simply show how Rosemary is right in the following CRAP calculation:

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

And while you are at it, explain to me why and how MY experiment, when the data are calculated this way, is not also massively overunity.

There is certainly a lot of content-less CRAP on this thread as you say. But it's not coming from Rosemary's detractors. NONE of her supporters or defenders, like YOU, have posted any EVIDENCE or EXPERIMENTAL WORK of their own to support your assertions that the detractors are speaking CRAP.

[eatenbyagrue]

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.

It appears you know as little about the Internet as you know about the law.  What the hell is an "IP Provider?" 


And you go on to say "any other member using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of each name used".  You mean if someone else is sneaking into Rosemary's house and using her computer to post on overunity.com?


And good luck subpoenaing those IP records.

[TinselKoala]

Guys,

I think you all need to change directions here.


Rosemary has indicated her Quantum 2002 article has been updated from a "CLAIM" of COP>17 to a incredible COP>INFINITY and is willing even to show it in court if need be.

The Quantum magic device has -

(1) IRFPG50 MOSFET
(1) 555 timer circuit on a separate dc battery power supply from the load inductor.
(1) fly back diode across the load inductor

It doesn't need all those mosfets in what ever wiring configuration, every circuit has been used now, there's only so many in Rosemary's NERD RAT examples Q1 / x5 or the Q1 / Q2-Q4 .   



So what say you ..... the Quantum 2002 article COP>INFINITY up-grade, just dust it off Rosemary and lets go !!!!

I say this: The Quantum circuit has many problems, not the least of which is awaiting anyone who builds and tests even the timer portion of the circuit AS PUBLISHED by Rosemary and never RETRACTED....

EDIT: I see that Fuzzy has posted Rosemary's retraction and acknowledgement of this error along with her fatuous apology to me. Did you realise that she later "retracted" this retraction and apology and continued to claim that the circuit was correct afterwards?

..... although all of her previous collaborators had to discard that circuit and build their own timers.... since the one published by Rosemary produces an INVERTED duty cycle: it keeps the mosfets OFF for 3.5 percent of the time rather than ON for that short duty cycle. Hence... once again... it is possible to reproduce her load heating time and temp profile DATA..... but her conclusion, that it happened at a short mosfet duty cycle... is wrong, because once again SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND circuitry or the quantitative use of an oscilloscope. Or even the qualitative use.... she was publishing scope traces that looked like this during those days:

(Is this one of hers, or one of mine?)