another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Poynt,

You asked for general input to determine reasonable test parameters, I offered some in good faith. If this upset you in some way I apologise.


You replied to them with agreement that the test is not to test the claim of COP = infinity.


I just want to know why you are redefining the claim to declare a winner at 50% over control ?


The claim on record as made by Rosemary is COP = infinity, as everyone knows.


A simple proof of an apparent anomaly is to turn it on and leave it alone, so why are you testing something else ?


RM

evolvingape,

Yes any and all constructive input is welcome, thanks.

Why does it seem we are not going to evaluate the original claim of COP infinity?

You will have to ask Rosemary that question.

I don't think the claim to be tested has yest been FIRMLY established, and it will need to be before we can go forward in a serious manner.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

Hello guys,
This one's rich.  'Remedial education' no less.  That's a new way to phrase it.  I was actually banned because Harvey Gramm complained to the admin at energetic forum for my implicit criticism of him when I wrote... 'If anyone ever presumes to know everything there is to know about Ed Leedskalnin - then they would need to duplicate the miracle of Coral Castle to prove it'... or words to that effect.  And this because Harvey Gramm went on record.  He intruded into our new thread about Ed's work and stated 'I can explain everything there is to know about Ed Leedskalnin' ... or words to that effect. He also claimed - when I posted there - that I was 'dogging his footsteps'.  I ask you?  LOL

Guys, MileHigh says I write LOL when I'm feeling nervous.  He's wrong.  But I think when I write LOL I actually mean something closer to  'PLEASE' or 'I ASK YOU' or 'WHAT A JOKE'.  Perhaps I should just develop my own internet speak.  Actually I've tried this.  Here and there.  But they never seem to be as satisfactory as the actual written phrase.  I'm probably just way too old.  But LOL certainly seems to cover all shades.  Perhaps I'm presuming too heavily on nuance.  And I love MileHigh's lololololol.  I think that's the possibly most appropriate here. So here goes.  LOLOLOLOL

But I absolutely do NOT indulge in reckless traducement.  It's just NOT my style. Nor ever has been.  What is true is that our claim has been somewhat contentious and seems to generate a certain extreme polarity of opinion.  Fortunately the more extreme 'against' are always such utterly nasty people - that I'd be rather sorry and very ashamed to have them approve of me or of our technology.  Fortunately they don't.  I get the distinct impression that I'm like one of those Christian martyrs being fed to the lions.  And the troll - like the lion - has no intellect and no reason.  Only an appetite for the kill.  So.  With that analogy then let me explain something.  I would prefer it that there was some subtlety of intellect come into the equation.  Then - at least - there'd be something - some level of engagement - to engross us all.  I think I'd prefer some gladiatorial combat.  I'm certainly old and I'm also unschooled - but I suspect that on that level - then I'd have no competition at all.  As it is TK doesn't even understand the implications of that oscillation.  The less said about Glen's ability to argue the better.  And Evolving Ape is trying very hard to supplement his argument with a multi line spacing - that he can at least give his posts great length as he cannot manage either good sense or gravitas. 

I must say though - I'm awfully grateful that Harti's sticking to his word and allowing this thread.  But I'm worried that it may be because he's also relying on this public butchering.  He's our Nero - hosting the games.  Surely not?  Surely he'd promote fair play?  OR.  Perhaps he sees this as being 'fair'.  Anyway.  I think we've all had enough 'speculation'.  It's all the trolls can ever manage and at the risk of indulging some tautology  - I think we've had an ample surfeit. That 'speculative misrepresentation' which is the politest of all possible descriptions of their treatment of our circuit - our technology - and little old me. 

Kindest regards guys.  Perhaps eventually TK et al will post something both interesting and appropriate.  I'm looking forward to it. Only because I'm afflicted with way too much optimism.

Rosemary

Edited.
Adjusted the spacing behind an apostrophe and added a minor qualification for clarity.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I find your obsession with Fuzzy as ridiculous as your stubbornness to carrying on regardless with your claim,
despite all the credible evidence against you, very few people even come to your defence and the majority of the ones that do are suspiciously new members.

I note from your response that you avoided the second part of my post, so here it is again.
How strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

And as for this.  It seems that Powercat thinks that IGNORING Glen Lettenmaier's multiple half-page posts indicates some kind of obsession?  He's only ever captured my interest on the promise of taking action against me.  I welcome it and have ably assisted by giving him a service address.

And there are MANY who support our claim.  How can they not?  It's been demonstrated - widely.  Not only this new circuit but the previous.  I've listed the number.  And they include very substantial players, including BP, ABB Research, SASOL, SPESCOM - and on and on.  TK likes to deny this because I don't post their names or proof of this.  But I keep pointing out that Quantum would hardly have published without first checking that accreditation.  And if their accreditation was bogus, if reference to their accreditation -  constituted a misrepresentation then I'm reasonably satisfied that I'd have had to face a call to 'retract' or face Court proceedings.  I'm too old and too well bitten to flirt with any level of misrepresentation.  He also seems to think that Professor Gaunt could not POSSIBLY have rejected a bursary award from SASOL.  Well.  As difficult as it may be to believe - it's also the truth.  There are those players who are INTIMATELY aware of both the offer and the rejection.  Presumably if they need to deny this it would be better that they first check their facts.

Regards to you powercat.  Your contributions are invaluable.  It gives me opportunity to reference some lesser known facts.
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Again, guys, at the risk of getting this subject on topic,

We have included a test in our paper that is consistent with the evidence in that download of TK's.  But it's not the correct download.  I'll try and find the LeCroy download when I'm done here.  If you look at the orange trace you'll see that the there is absolutely no battery draw down during the 'on phase' of the switching cycle.  The switch is shown on the blue trace.  When the switching cycle changes to its second phase of the duty cycle - when the battery is effectively disconnected, then only does the oscillation kick in. 

Now.  One must assume that the positive half of each of those oscillations comes from the battery supply.  IF this was the case, then equally, there must be some path for that current to flow.  Now.  We know that the signal at the gate of Q2 is positive.  In which case it would certainly enable a positive current discharge from the supply.  BUT.  For current to flow from the battery supply it would need to discharge that current flow to the battery supply source rail.  And it can't get there - other than through the the Gate of Q1 - because it's connected DIRECTLY to that leg.  Again.  The source leg of the Q2 MOSFET is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE of Q1.  And Q1 has an applied NEGATIVE SIGNAL.  It cannot 'breach' that signal.  So no sooner is the current discharged from the battery during this phase - when it is blocked at the only available outlet.  Therefore there is no path for the discharge of current during this period.  The circuit is effectively open to the battery as the battery cannot discharge any current flow.

That's the point of this entire argument and the intention of our paper.  We resolve the 'path' that would enable that positive half of each phase of each oscillation.   I'll get back here.  I need to post that waveform.  And I then want to propose our solution - in the hopes that there are more of you than just Poynty Point who can wrap their minds around this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I've chosen two downloads from two different tests.  The first is to show you some of the extreme range of current flow enabled notwithstanding the fact that no energy is delivered under closed conditions.  I unfortunately didn't do an waveform detail.  But I've included a download of the typical oscillation in the next download.  Hopefully it'll work.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is an earlier exercise that I did to resolve the 'paths'.  If this is correct then it also tells us exactly what all this hidden energy is.  Again.  For those of you who can wrap there minds around this - this is the entire thesis - in a nutshell.  Which may seem insignificant.  But for those of you with insight into these matters this is huge.  I'm confident that TK will entirely miss the point here.  Which is why this conversation needs to move to POYNTY.  TK hasn't got the intellectual wherewith all to understand this.  Sadly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Which guys, means this.

To keep this readable - BV = battery voltage - BC = battery current. 
Conversely RV = resistor voltage - RC = resistor current.

1 BC is positive -  clockwise              -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this >>>>> GREATER ZERO
. potential difference transferred to RV
. discharge of potential difference from BV

2 RC is negative - counterclockwise   +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this <<<<< LESS THAN ZERO
. potential difference transferred to BV
. discharge of potential difference from RV

3 RC is positive - clockwise               +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +-  +- like this >>>>>>GREATER THAN ZERO
. potential difference transferred from RV
. recharge of potential difference at BV

This would resolve the problem.  Effectively we're proposing that the discharge of energy in that 3rd phase is coincident with the positive half of each oscillation.  And that it 'leads' with a negative charge.  Which would explain the path for that oscillation as the charge bias of the current would then be in synch with the polarity bias' of the MOSFETS.

In any event guys.  That's what we're proposing.  I hope that's clear.  Effectively all that has happened is that the element resistor becomes the supply source and it's voltages are the mirror opposite of the battery supply.  LOL  It's difficult to explain.  But it's just SO SIMPLE.