another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Everyone please note:

I have ALWAYS encouraged anyone with the skill and the wit and the kit to build and test Rosemary's claims for themselves. Go ahead and do it. Show your work, share it, and there is enough expertise here so that you can get it right. Just do it.

I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes using her circuit, as she has claimed she has done, over and over.

My dear TK - I think this needs a minor editing.  If you don't mind I'll attend to it.

>>I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes as I keep claiming that she claims that she has done, over and over.

LOL

As ever,
Rosie Pose

[Magluvin]

Hey Tk

I have some questions..   a questions about the circuit, not of your doings,in your honest opinion 

The Rose circuit you show in the vid Abba posted. the one you show to be what is on the table.

Was thinking about when you took the battery out.  If you take away all of the circuit except for the 2 fets and the sig gen.

Is the oscillation still there?  It doesnt need the battery potential connected in any way?
And if so, the inductor is meaningless as to having this oscillation?

And if the oscillation still exists, with or without the rest of the circuit(battery included), does that same oscillation even feed into or affect the rest of the circuit as to show the oscillations at the load and the battery?

Also, What battery voltage and signal level did Rose use in that particular circuit?
And what was the estimated power out at the load you have figured vs Roses claim of output to the load?

Also, what purpose does the inductor play in all of this in your opinion? Does it affect the circuit in any way and how, in and out of the circuit?




And finally, 1 about the inductor/transformer. And actually, this one is about your doings...

Do you agree that my description of what is going on with the transformer with the leds across the primary(said inductor) and one on the secondary was accurate?

And if so, does it affect the outcome in any way as compared to just using an inductor there as prescribed?

I havnt ever said nor admitted that I know how the oscillations are occurring or if it works for sure.

But with so little knowledge of Roses circuit, I could pick apart things that just dont add up with the arguments against her. With not one of you actually building it properly, yet the conclusions are galore. Thats not right. I dont care what Rose says,does, nor has done, if the assumptions from the angry crowd are not held up by due diligence, but short cuts. Whether its sims, not the same circuit, or just not doing anything at all, to show what she has shown is all wrong.

The three readers here just may feel the same way. But what if one of you gave a full presentation such as Rose has?  Its a lot of work there.

You and some may disagree. But what of the 3 readers? Your audience. You are all visible to them.

Some will fall for the insults and assume Rose is the bad guy. Thats what insults are for. That is the intent. And only idiots follow that leader. But that proves nothing. Its just politics. lol if there were no readers, there would be none of this I suppose. But since there are, "Ya Gotta Givem What They Want" attitude appears..  If it were not for the audience, the insults would be of little effect to reaching the final goal, except to show what kind of person you really are. And that happens also with an audience.  So are the insults really productive? Well Im an audience member and I am disappointed in what I see.
I dont count? The 3 readers dont count? What about the real numbers of readers?

Remember when you busted Mylow?  Even though ya knew it was a fake, yet didnt know that there was fishing line yet(as far as I know), your replication was not really the same.
Maybe it was because you felt you knew it was all a joke.

But if you came across something that interested you. Would you still produce a replica that is fairly off from the original, and if it didnt work, then lay the claim that it wont work?  Is this the new status quo? Seems quite unproductive. Is this the new standard in science? 

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Magsy - I never knew anything at all about the Mylow fiasco.  But what I can tell you as fact is that a very dear friend of mine is entirely satisfied that the 'fishing line' was 'put in' deliberately.  I'm not in a position to say - one way or another.  But he and his friends are satisfied that this was done.

What's confusing is that this 'perpetual motor' has now been claimed by a South African group (NOT US I HASTEN TO ADD) who - for all we know - are applying some of those Mylow principles.  In other words they were not put out by the debunk that TK presented.  Then you must remember this.  Cold fusion burst onto the scene in the late 80's.  It was VOCIFEROUSLY DENIED and EXPERIMENTALLY DISPROVED.  Yet it has now re-emerged and is being endorsed as a study by those at MIT as well as other HIGHLY accredited academies.  I think the lesson is this.  There is no way under God's sun that any new technologies will NOT be progressed - with or without 'nay sayers'. 

Also bear in mind that the nay sayers on the cold fusion number are now - to a man - utterly disgraced in the public eye.  TK will have a lot to answer to - in due course.  But for now his overriding drive is to entirely discredit both me and the technology.  And he ONLY knows these techniques of 'in your face rudeness'.  But what he hasn't realised yet is that too much of it - any excess - and the public start wondering what gives.  And this, in turn, allows a technology to be tested on its merits and NOT on the heresay of those that seem to have a compulsive need to DENY ALL.

Is my take.  Which also means - kudos to Poynty and to Harti.  They're allowing the facts to unfold.  Not the claims about those facts.  And that's actually how it should be.  What TK is doing is 'implying' that there's nothing to show.  But he's skewed his test.  He's like that Dr Vest who went to some lengths to disprove cold fusion.  You cannot 'disprove' a valid test.  Can't be done.  It WILL inevitably be tested by others.  You can't put a lid on it.  And IF there's merit in the claim - then it CAN be replicated.  Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing.

Kindest regards
Rosie

[Magluvin]

hey rose

Yea, a lot of us were on Mylows case. From hand jobs, fishing lines to off balancing. He did it all. In the end there were multiple times that the fishing line was noticeable.

Yeah it is funny. Supposedly mit had successful tests back when and covered up. Then Rossi comes along, and after, mit again says yes it works, then Rossi goes down for the count. Just waitng for mit to take it all back again.


"Like Glen did on our own claim.  The problem is that - having tested it - then he tried to claim it as his own discovery.  Nothing to do with a replication.  Very confusing."

Oh. Id like to read up on that. 

Mags

[TinselKoala]

My dear TK - I think this needs a minor editing.  If you don't mind I'll attend to it.

>>I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes as I keep claiming that she claims that she has done, over and over.

LOL

As ever,
Rosie Pose

So these are not your words, or you have posted a correction somewhere and I haven't noticed? Link please.
(This is a quote from your post in this very thread, #666).

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.

Twenty five point six MILLION JOULES.  Your words, your claim, your lie, until you retract it.