another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys,

I'm likely not able to answer any further posts for the balance of the day.  But I caution you all to take note.  If there was any honour between either Tinsel Koala or Glen Lettenmaier - then they would both require me to continue with this thread and these proposed definitive tests.  What they are doing - with an increasing sense of desperation - is to impose pages of denial on these poor efforts of ours for a reasonable discussion - that the thread is predominantly unreadable.  If there was any sincere desire to find answers they would not dominate this discussion with the irrelevant and 'thin' excuses that take the focus away from our claim.  Their tactics are both clumsy and counter productive.

What is increasingly impossible to understand is that Harti is not only permitting it - but is positively encouraging it.  And I'm afraid that is a puzzle that only Harti can address.  At a guess this thread is more than 2 thirds pure traducement.  And it certainly is not less than 1 half.  Every time they post they are in breach of good manners, scientific research and the desire to explore any claims of over unity which - ostensibly - is the purpose of this forum.  I can do no more than apologise for the mess they make of my threads.  The fact is that these monsters have dogged my every step - from the get go and that they will never allow this a fair chance.  That in itself should speak volumes.

If they are concerned that this is bogus - then it will not be proved by alleging anything at all.  I am afraid that there are hidden mandates and hidden agendas that abound against any over unity claim.  And I can do nothing about so much that is hidden.  It is entirely unreasonable to suppose that either TK or Glen Lettenmaier will go to such extraordinary lengths to disclaim anything at all - unless it is somehow personally impacting on their lives.  And I suspect that it is.  Glen because he wants to claim ownership of this or some variant of this technology.  And TK because his identity and possibly his income is impacted.  Else this simply no longer makes any kind of sense. 

The day started off with a reasonable discussion on the requirements for a test to be conducted.  Three pages later I am still dealing with great washes of calumny - from a poster who hides behind an identity - that puts him out of reach of any kind of accountability.  And he claims that I am unethical.  It is absurd.  What I assure you is that their techniques are working.  And that all this is a disgrace to our over unity drive.  And unless some measures are put in to prevent this - then this thread is doomed.

Kindest regards
Rosemary.

[TinselKoala]

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.

True and correct, Rosemary, or not? Your own words, or not? Calumny, Rosemary? These are YOUR WORDS. Is it ethical to make claims like this one, to fail to correct the errors, and to continue to make the absurd claim based on the errors? IS THAT ETHICAL?

What does my identity have to do with the false statements you make in the quote above?

Why do you not correct your math and your claim and your conclusion? You have had ample opportunity to do so.


TWENTY FIVE MILLION JOULES.... or NOT?

It's a very simple question.... that you have been dodging now for weeks, just as you won't answer Fuzzy about WHICH CIRCUIT WAS ACTUALLY USED.

Unethical for him to ask? Unethical for me to want you to correct your manifest errors? You have a funny definition of "ethical".. but then we've known that for some time, haven't we. I remember you on the Naked Scientists forum, lying about your patent, years ago.

[TinselKoala]

Tinsel Koala,

When you can prove that we have - in any way - falsified our data - or misrepresented our numbers - or misrepresented our circuit - or our circuit components - when you can prove that our measuring instruments are faulted - when you can show us that that the battery discharge of current is responsible for the delivery of 1 half of every half of each oscillation - THEN you will have an argument.  Until then - and while Harti permits this level of blatant traducement - calumny - libel - then I propose that any of your readers - treat any claim that you may make with a certain amount of circumspection.

If you want to show any kind of courage - that you are assuming may be lacking in Mags' posts - then show us your own.  We do not know who it is that is this reckless with his opinion.  If I knew who you were I'd ask you to defend these statements in court. So.  IF you plan to stand by these statements - THEN SHOW US WHO YOU ARE.  That would be interesting indeed.  We all want to know - your name - your employer - and what it is that motivates the EXTRAORDINARY lengths you are going to to try and insinuate and allege so much against me, and against this our technology.  It is highly SUSPECT.

Rosemary

Preserved for posterity. I am being accused of calumny and libel because I keep posting this quote of Rosemary's, which contains the basis of her entire set of claims. Be careful, Rosemary. You are telling lies, making false claims, and people who do such things shouldn't be talking about courts of law.

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.

25.6 MILLION JOULES, Rosemary. That is a lie, and you have not corrected it.

NOTE that I have shown -- PROVEN if you like -- several times in this thread alone, exactly what is wrong with your numbers and your calculations above. So you are lying YET AGAIN when you claim that I haven't done so, precisely and exactly, using your own data as reported here.

Am I wrong in my calculations and explanations? Isn't it funny how nobody has claimed that I am -- except you -- or pointed out where I went wrong. Isn't that funny? Since I am such a rabid debunker, a libeller, a thorn in your side? SHOW THAT I AM WRONG about your 25 point 6 million impossible Joules, then. Repeat your calculations and SHOW THAT I AM WRONG.

And doesn't it strike anyone as odd that I ALWAYS ENCOURAGE OTHERS to build and test Rosemary's circuit for themselves? Is that any way for someone who has an "agenda" to suppress research in "Free Energy" to behave? That I encourage open and comprehensive testing of HER EXACT CIRCUIT, not the one I've got but the one SHE HAS GOT, by people who actually DO know what they are doing and can lay out a circuit properly? Isn't that strange, that I am ALWAYS eager for testing, that I show my work in such clarity that anyone can reproduce what I've done easily, and that I stand by my calculations, or correct them when errors are found?

Is that really any way for a MONSTER to behave?

[eatenbyagrue]

Preserved for posterity. I am being accused of calumny and libel because I keep posting this quote of Rosemary's, which contains the basis of her entire set of claims. Be careful, Rosemary. You are telling lies, making false claims, and people who do such things shouldn't be talking about courts of law.

25.6 MILLION JOULES, Rosemary. That is a lie, and you have not corrected it.

Mr. Koala, I think you are caught in a trap of your own making.  You just want to be proven right, but it does not appear that you are going to get your full satisfaction out of Ms. Ainslee.  I suppose it feels good to be right, so I can see why you do what you do.  But being right by criticizing free energy devices is a little like shooting fish in a barrell.  Pick any free energy device, and point out that it cannot work, and you will always be right.  But what is the sport in this?  Do you like the shooting of the fish in the barrell?


I think your energies would be better spent assisting Rosemary in developing her overunity technology. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys

We all need to address this.  I am trying to progress this Infinite co-efficient of performance claim.  There are those here who are doing their damnedest to prevent any discussion at all.  They are IMPOSING allegations and opinions that are detrimental to this technology and that is hardly likely to be in anyone's best interests and certainly NOT in the best interests of science.

However, it is only fair that everyone be given a 'fair chance'.  If TK and others - wish to air their views - or conduct experiments disproving our claim - then they should be allowed every opportunity to do so.  And they should also be entitled to a full and fair hearing - as are we.  But what is going on here cannot continue.

We may have come up with a solution.  I want Harti to consider this.  It is unlikely that he even reads here.  I think he may dip in occasionally - but he's not really that interested.  Therefore please, to those of you who read here and are also members and, obviously if you agree with this proposal could I impose on you to either email or PM him this post to ensure it's brought to his attention.

Let TK start his own thread.  Let him allege all he likes there about either me or about our experiment.  And then I can continue here in discussion with Poynty to determine the parameters required for our tests and why they're required.  That way one can get to some kind of finality.  And that way - whatever it is that TK manages - will be readily viewed by whoever needs to - as a reasonable counterargument to our own claim.

Failing which, I'm afraid that I needs must withdraw from this discussion.  It is now so far outside the bounds of good science or any kind of decency that I'd be crazy to continue with this exercise.  Under normal circumstances I should be given monitorship of the thread that I can keep it relevant.  And that is precisely what our detractors are trying to prevent.  Let TK have his say.  There is nothing to prevent this as there is nothing to stop him opening his own thread.  And then we can get some modicum of 'fair play' back into this discussion.  Unless any of you can propose anything else.  But that's the best we can come up with.

Kindest regards
Rosemary