Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

We've been invited to submit a paper - yet again.  This time round I believe we'll have a good chance of passing review to publication.  it seems these forums are better subscribed than I realised and interest from some significant players has not been diminished.  And this time round we won't again run the risk of getting our submission sabotaged.

And Glen - when you finally manage to garner some respect and credibility with our readers - then they may, indeed, take cognisance of your appalling posts.  As it is you do much to advertise our work and nothing whatsoever to damage my good name - as you intend.  It goes to show that even bad publicity is good publicity.



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Poynty Point.  This is very good news indeed.  I've just sent you an email.  Check it out.  And let me know what you think.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rose,

I would be interested in getting your feedback and comments on the results I presented. Are they not in line with your own? Is there more to the story perhaps?

.99

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys,

We've been invited to submit a paper - yet again.  This time round I believe we'll have a good chance of passing review to publication.  it seems these forums are better subscribed than I realised and interest from some significant players has not been diminished.  And this time round we won't again run the risk of getting our submission sabotaged.

And Glen - when you finally manage to garner some respect and credibility with our readers - then they may, indeed, take cognisance of your appalling posts.  As it is you do much to advertise our work and nothing whatsoever to damage my good name - as you intend.  It goes to show that even bad publicity is good publicity.



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary any credibility you had left is "GONE" especially after your posting of the pure nonsense "REPORT".

NO ONE HERE AT OVER UNITY cares about your pathetic thesis .... This thread is called Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 for a reason none of which you have ever understood titles of threads at http://www.energeticforum.com/ .... http://www.overunityresearch.com/ ..... http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/ ..... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/ ( aka witsend , aetherevarising ) where you were banned for continued false and inaccurate statements and attacking members.   

I invite and challenge everyone readers and guests to look at the 8,000 postings of Rosemary's spread out over several years at these forums and see for yourself.

This thread here at OU.com was to show evidence of a finding on a claim of "YOURS" on efficiency of a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY.

You have not shown in any "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" how to obtain this efficiency in any way shape or form a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY and have "FAILED" miserably only a grade or high school electronic class will be interested in your claim.

You ( Rosemary ) cannot supply one credible package of one experiment that includes a circuit diagram with oscilloscope screen shots done during the test not even one to verify your claim of a finding.

The REPORT failed .... nothing for a independent experimentalist to take and to make a device to your specifications for testing and evaluation in a scientific method to verify the claim on a finding of COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY ....


There is nothing in this thread of value you are a terrible inventor and experimentalist and my credentials and expertise stand on there own and well documented unlike yours ..... this is what documentation looks like .... FYI 
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html  ( nine pages !!!! )
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater


I won't be so nice to ask you a "TENTH" time here in this thread to do the testing in a scientific method required and do it correctly, not half ass or less as you have shown or are you incapable of the request.


Facts only Facts can you do that ? Are you capable Rosemary ? Do you need someone to hold your hand ?   


Fuzzy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys here's the situation.

Until we could generate some hefty wattage through the system it could have been argued that we were using the functions generator as the source of that extra energy.  Until we used that superb little LeCroy Wavjet 324 it could have been argued that we were undersampling.  Until we used that equally superb Tektronix MSO 354 it could have been argued that the LeCroy measurements were wrong.  Until we had repeated those results it could have been argued that the results were anomalous.  Until we had demonstrated this publicly it could have been argued that there we had fabricated those results.  Until we'd put the CSR directly in line with the negative rail of the battery it could have been argued that our current computations were wrong.  And until we had shown a negative sum of voltage across the CSR it could have been argued that we were not getting COP infinity.

To add to the evidence.  Our last tests showed that the temperature over the resistor element rose to 240 degrees centigrade with the on period of the duty cycle set to 12mV for 18% of a duty cycle over a period of 2 hours and it then brought 0.7 litres of water to 80 degrees centigrade.  Then we changed the frequency.  The off set remained in the same position.  But now the temperature of the water rose to 104 degrees centigrade.  Therefore, conservatively speaking we were able to take water to boil at 0.12 watts of energy measured from the battery supply during this short 18 parts 'on' of every 82 parts off of each period of the duty cycle.  THEN if one takes into account the energy actually measured to have been delivered to the system - if one factors in the oscillation which was evident for the remaining 82 percent of the duty cycle - then there was more energy being returned than was first delivered by the supply.

Clearly there was something in the order of 100 watts or thereby of energy dissipated at the cost of absolutely nothing from the supply.

Those are the facts.  I am posting a 'close up' of where the 'offset' was positioned during the 'on' period and where it remained throughout that test period.  I was going to give a repeat of this and other tests for the forum - but as we're now to do a paper on this I'll only use the repeat data for that submission.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And may I add that it's a matter of some considerable concern to me that Glen is allowed to litter and pollute this thread with this ridiculous and confrontational and rude posts - and that Harti, notwithstanding repeated requests - is not prepared to do anything about it.

It is almost as if he DOES NOT WANT THIS NEWS TO BREAK.  It is almost as if he ACTUALLY WANTS THIS THREAD TO BE INCINERATED.

I find that extraordinary.  In the light of the evidence that we now have to hand on PROOF of COP INFINITY - then one would assume that he would do everything to nurture rather than KILL OFF this knowledge.  I CANNOT understand it - not with the best will in the world.  WHY?  WHY when so much evidence is to hand is he most earnestly attempting to block the information?  Is it because he'd prefer that the news does not come from me?  Is he selecting the proof that he requires - instead of the proof as it's presented?  Is there some kind of selection in play?  Or is it perhaps that he does not actually support this drive of ours to crack the energy barriers?  Or must this information first come from a MAN - as opposed to a WOMAN?  Not sure?  I give up.  All I know is that he is positively and anxiously ensuring that this thread get flamed.

I also need you to all be alert to this.  I personally am doubly concerned that the romero test may - indeed - have been a required distraction to this our news.  It certainly seems that way.

Regards,
Rosemary