Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[MrMag]

Regarding your own household maximum watt output  at 240 x 100 = 24 000 watts?  Not sure that this is relevant.  I think if you output that amount work over 90 minutes which is the test duration period then you'd actually output  240 x 100 x 60 seconds x 90 minutes = 129 million watts - which is rather more than the rated capacity of our batteries and considerably higher than the energy that we're  referencing in our tests.

I think he was just trying to show you a comparison.

Golly rose, did you even try to comprehend that answer? 129 MILLION watts!!! And you have the nerve to call everyone here incompetent, unqualified, and ignorant. You also say that Poynt is useless at power measurement when you come up with this number?

Do you really think that you are qualified to say that anyone is incompetent when you come up with this number? You better try again.
Hint: Go on the internet and Google "watt-hour calculation"

No wonder you are under the impression that your circuit is OU.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think he was just trying to show you a comparison.

Golly rose, did you even try to comprehend that answer? 129 MILLION watts!!! And you have the nerve to call everyone here incompetent, unqualified, and ignorant. You also say that Poynt is useless at power measurement when you come up with this number?

Do you really think that you are qualified to say that anyone is incompetent when you come up with this number? You better try again.
Hint: Go on the internet and Google "watt-hour calculation"

No wonder you are under the impression that your circuit is OU.

DEAR GOD HELP US ALL.  This from a man who CLAIMS he's had 30 odd years of experience as a qualified electrical engineer?
R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - since Cat is only able to quote Fuzzy - I think I need to put some facts on the table.  Fuzzy claims that he never replicated out first test.  Here's why.  He could only find COP>4.  We claimed COP>17.  On the strength of that claim he therefore ALSO claims that his test is materially different to our own test.  Therefore his test is more in the nature of his own personal discovery than a replication.  Because he could not replicate the COP>17 result he claims that we lied about that result.  He also goes on to claim that we are lying about these new tests. He does not - personally - believe that we have a COP>17 let alone an INFINITE COP.  Nor does he believe in the basis of my thesis which, as you now understand, I hope, is NOT so much a thesis as a validation of Farrady's inductive laws.  He also claims that I am not an experimentalist as I do not have the competence.  He also claims that I am not a theoretician as I do not have the competence.  He rifled my photobucket to find out which academy I was working with.  When he established this he then wrote to CPUT to advise them that I have stolen his work and that I MAY NOT reference a paper that was written on this work as it is plagiarised.  In other words,  not only was the paper NOT written by me but that the work was nothing to do with a replication of our earlier work.  That application was unsuccessful.  Then he wrote to SCRIBD to tell them I'd plagiarised his work.  That application WAS successful.  Scribd withdrew the paper that I had published - the ONLY paper on record that was submitted to TIE.  So  anxious was Fuzzy to ensure that NO-ONE followed my work he then took the trouble to message most of the contributors to this thread to advise them that I was a liar - and incompetent - a thief - a fraud - and above all - do not ASSOCIATE with this work.  He made public a private video that I had sent to him. He has  started 3 threads dedicated to maligning my good name and has contributed generously to a blogspot dedicated to this same purpose.  He has gone further.  He has also run a series of tests that showed that he could NOT duplicate the COP>4 tests and therefore denies that there was ever any benefit.  He has not yet retracted that paper that claims COP>4 which is curious.  Hopefully he'll eventually put that record straight.

I think we all now know what Fuzzy thinks of me and of our work.  It seems that CAT and MAMAGS think the same.  No doubt TK and Poynty share those opinions - and no doubt there are yet many, many others of like mind.  And no doubt there will be yet many more to come.  That is the value of open source.  It allows any person - regardless of their motives - to say anything they want and claim what they like.  And in the face of all these claims and allegations and opinions it seems that our work is doomed.  So be it.

So.  It really is not such a hard thing to kill any new beneficial technology.  It just needs persistence.

Rosemary

[MrMag]

DEAR GOD HELP US ALL.  This from a man who CLAIMS he's had 30 odd years of experience as a qualified electrical engineer?
R

Well, I worked it out to something like 36Kw hours. But I could be wrong, I have been before and at least I do admit it. Not like you rose.

What about the other post where I showed that you quoted that there have been people on this forum who have replicated your circuit and then later on you say that no one on this forum has replicated your circuit.

Don't forget, you are the one making the OU claims, not me. I think your reputation and credibility is a lot more at stake then mine. Remember, you already said that I was incompetent, unqualified, useless..... But you are right, we have enough engineers what we need are more waitresses.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And since I'm on a roll - let me give a synopsis of Poynty's argument.  Here it is.  The simulation shows an INFINITE COP ONLY if we factor in the connecting leads.  Without those leads there is NO  INFINITE COP.

And TK's argument - something on the lines of Fuzzy - HE could not achieve COP > ANYTHING AT ALL - therefore there is no COP>ANYTHING AT ALL. 

And MileHihigh's argument - his personal BEST.  How can we CLAIM results that are greater COP 1 when standard science does not ALLOW THIS.  Therefore are we wrong.

And so it goes.  All these thousands of posts and always that same argument.  I personally think that these posts eventually reach a certain critical mass and then they JUST COLLAPSE.  And I think we're well over that point.

I'm preparing a detailed account of the absurdities of all these arguments and will post in on my blogspot.  Meanwhile I really need to say goodbye to you all.  I'll post here again when we've finished that paper.

Rosemary

I omitted CAT's reasons.  He thinks that Fuzzy is a good guy and that anything Fuzzy claims is just perfectly OK.  And as for MaMags.  He doesn't think.  Ever.  He just echoes everyone else - not unlike my little 2 year old granddaughter who echos her own big sister.  It would be rather sweet if it weren't also so utterly destructive.

Anyway.  Bye for now.  I've got another paper to prepare before we submit the one that's now finished.