another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear hartiberlin

Many thanks indeed for giving me access to this thread, which carries the fruits of the hard work applied to this research both by myself and my collaborators.  Unfortunately it still hold copious evidence of a level of traducement and slander that, at its least, is libelous.  As progress of this technology to proof - under any conditions at all - also relies on the engagement of academics and professionals, and since this thread is the base reference - then, unfortunately, it is unlikely that any of our revered and esteemed are likely to engage.  This because professionals, as a rule, do not like their names to be associated with such gross and unprofessional lack of constraint in any context at all.  Therefore, unless those offending posts are deleted or transferred to an alternate thread - then you have done nothing at all to enable the progress of this to any reasonable discussion, or even to proof of experimental evidence that I was hoping to manage.

I would add that the history of my contributions to this and, indeed, all threads in all forums where I have engaged, have been dogged by that same level of intervention and conducted, more often than not, by precisely those same individuals, under varying Internet personas and with a liberality of abuse that not only defies any reasonable forum guidelines, but that is indeed criminally abusive.  Therefore, should I continue to post here and should I not be given moderation rights - then I will have no 'on going' protection from precisely that attack.  In which case history will simply repeat itself - and I may yet again find that our technology is argued on the basis of allegation and opinion instead of in the cold light of reason and good argument which is required by science.

Then too my initial engagement on your forum was never stipulated or contracted on 'special' conditions outside forum guidelines. On the basis on nothing more demanding that those 'forum guidelines' and your own invitation to engage - I accepted your offer to re-engage here - both on the penultimate occasion when this thread was locked and on at least 3 previous occasions.  But my engagement on your last invitation was accepted on the basis of trust in your desire to explore the further proof of our experimental evidence - and the implicit understanding that you would not lock my threads.  Frankly I did not anticipate that you would also couple this allowance with the open invitation to MileHigh, tinselkoala, powercat, and Glen Lettenmaier (aka fuzzytomcat) to appropriate ownership of my thread to comment with that liberality to which I referred.  As mentioned - this has put this thread address outside the range of any acceptable reference which makes it impossible to progress this to the proof required - associated as it is with academic comment.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that in order to salvage this technology from the slurs that have been imposed on it by this wanton engagement of some of your members I would need to have the right to monitor my own thread or that you would need to appoint an impartial monitor from amongst your members.  I am reasonably satisfied that wilby's impartiality to the test results would qualify as such but am not at all sure that he's prepared to engage.  Alternatively, perhaps eatenbyagrue... or someone.  I'm sure we can both agree on some choice and that there may be this impartial moderator who may have the time and the interest to deal with this.

And coupled with this active moderation would be the requirement to remove a great many posts that slander my good name, diminish the technology and indeed relate to matters that are entirely extraneous to this topic or written in defense of that calumny.  This just to ensure that this thread address does not remain the embarrassment that is its present state.  If you are reluctant to delete those offending posts may I propose that they are removed to an alternate thread address.  I'm sure that you would then be able to retain the income that you enjoy related to your advertisements that are included in our threads. 

Then indeed we can revert to that early intention which is progress this claim even beyond any claims made thus far - which is to explore the efficacy of this technology related to battery draw down tests.  And we can then all address the anomalies that are related to the claims in our paper.  I personally, and the collaborators collectively, feel that this may merit some considerable interest as it is also very much in the interest of wider public and thereby deemed to be in the good of the public.  Certainly thorough evaluation of the evidence would be required lest the public be misled.  And equally, the evaluations that are then exposed through discussion and experimental evidence would need some protection lest the benefits to the public be denied.  And when these matters are finalised - then I would strongly propose that the thread is locked.  But only then.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

[fuzzytomcat]

My dear hartiberlin

Many thanks indeed for giving me access to this thread, which carries the fruits of the hard work applied to this research both by myself and my collaborators.  Unfortunately it still hold copious evidence of a level of traducement and slander that, at its least, is libelous.  As progress of this technology to proof - under any conditions at all - also relies on the engagement of academics and professionals, and since this thread is the base reference - then, unfortunately, it is unlikely that any of our revered and esteemed are likely to engage.  This because professionals, as a rule, do not like their names to be associated with such gross and unprofessional lack of constraint in any context at all.  Therefore, unless those offending posts are deleted or transferred to an alternate thread - then you have done nothing at all to enable the progress of this to any reasonable discussion, or even to proof of experimental evidence that I was hoping to manage.

I would add that the history of my contributions to this and, indeed, all threads in all forums where I have engaged, have been dogged by that same level of intervention and conducted, more often than not, by precisely those same individuals, under varying Internet personas and with a liberality of abuse that not only defies any reasonable forum guidelines, but that is indeed criminally abusive.  Therefore, should I continue to post here and should I not be given moderation rights - then I will have no 'on going' protection from precisely that attack.  In which case history will simply repeat itself - and I may yet again find that our technology is argued on the basis of allegation and opinion instead of in the cold light of reason and good argument which is required by science.

Then too my initial engagement on your forum was never stipulated or contracted on 'special' conditions outside forum guidelines. On the basis on nothing more demanding that those 'forum guidelines' and your own invitation to engage - I accepted your offer to re-engage here - both on the penultimate occasion when this thread was locked and on at least 3 previous occasions.  But my engagement on your last invitation was accepted on the basis of trust in your desire to explore the further proof of our experimental evidence - and the implicit understanding that you would not lock my threads.  Frankly I did not anticipate that you would also couple this allowance with the open invitation to MileHigh, tinselkoala, powercat, and Glen Lettenmaier (aka fuzzytomcat) to appropriate ownership of my thread to comment with that liberality to which I referred.  As mentioned - this has put this thread address outside the range of any acceptable reference which makes it impossible to progress this to the proof required - associated as it is with academic comment.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that in order to salvage this technology from the slurs that have been imposed on it by this wanton engagement of some of your members I would need to have the right to monitor my own thread or that you would need to appoint an impartial monitor from amongst your members.  I am reasonably satisfied that wilby's impartiality to the test results would qualify as such but am not at all sure that he's prepared to engage.  Alternatively, perhaps eatenbyagrue... or someone.  I'm sure we can both agree on some choice and that there may be this impartial moderator who may have the time and the interest to deal with this.

And coupled with this active moderation would be the requirement to remove a great many posts that slander my good name, diminish the technology and indeed relate to matters that are entirely extraneous to this topic or written in defense of that calumny.  This just to ensure that this thread address does not remain the embarrassment that is its present state.  If you are reluctant to delete those offending posts may I propose that they are removed to an alternate thread address.  I'm sure that you would then be able to retain the income that you enjoy related to your advertisements that are included in our threads. 

Then indeed we can revert to that early intention which is progress this claim even beyond any claims made thus far - which is to explore the efficacy of this technology related to battery draw down tests.  And we can then all address the anomalies that are related to the claims in our paper.  I personally, and the collaborators collectively, feel that this may merit some considerable interest as it is also very much in the interest of wider public and thereby deemed to be in the good of the public.  Certainly thorough evaluation of the evidence would be required lest the public be misled.  And equally, the evaluations that are then exposed through discussion and experimental evidence would need some protection lest the benefits to the public be denied.  And when these matters are finalised - then I would strongly propose that the thread is locked.  But only then.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

This isn't a battery draw down test I see that you posted, just more of the same bloviating on your merit of the collaborators that are all in hiding and refuse to back a single statement of yours even your claim of COP>INFINITY.

It be better Rosemary to get the known professional of the lot of your NERD RAT team, that being Donovan Martin as you Rosemary Ainslie have lost all credibility in your ability to discuss electronic circuitry, testing or evaluation of the data you have provide as a method of or to your claim of COP>INFINITY ..... COP greater than INFINITY. Where are all these people you always say are behind your findings .... dead or on some remote island ??

You Rosemary have even refused a offer of mine to show your COP>INFINITY device LIVE on my streaming broadcast web site, that says volumes in itself to me and the countless others .... so that offer is gone for you. 

I'm sure Poynt99 will not touch your battery draw down test with a ten foot pole now that there is still problems shown in your YouTube video like what schematic for the device shown was used in the video, plus how in the hell to verify anything you do Rosemary being you fail to document everything that may negate your "THESIS" through a proper scientific experiment, like to the one just done by TK that your running and hiding from the results.

From what I've heard directly you didn't even verify that Poynt99 was still interested or even willing to do "ANY" testing with you again, does Stefan know that ?? 

I'm going to do anything and everything I can to contact Donovan Martin to verify his collaboration with you, his 100% agreement on the findings of a COP>INFINITY in documents you sent to some accredited journals or magazines for possible publication and answers to the questions posted in this thread you refuse to answer concerning the schematics, video, scope shots, test data.

FTC

[TinselKoala]

Where's the test?

I thought this thread was opened to discuss the test that RA is going to perform.

Where is this test? Where is the discussion of the test?

I have shown exactly how such a test can be performed, in a short amount of time, in an unequivocal manner. No "academics" or other professionals, no instrument readings or interpretations need be performed. Show the NERD RAT device heating a load to 190 C as in the video, for 48 hours, then do the Dim Bulb test. Use the Function Generator, I don't care.

Just DO THE TEST.

Or perhaps... ROSEMARY AINSLIE is trying to suppress dialog and testing of a FREE ENERGY DEVICE. She certainly is trying to suppress ME.




AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY OF ROSEMARY AINSLIE:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please review the following video, as it contains the heart of the Ainslie matter. Ainslie has given this video and the demonstration contained therein as evidence that her device qualifies for a monetary award. There are some things that you should understand about this video. I ask you to have Ainslie herself explain certain matters in the video to you...then have an electronics professional or electrical engineer explain the same points to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

It is my position that this video of Ainslie's makes substantial misrepresentations as to the performance of her device. Since she is applying for a monetary prize, these misrepresentations need to be addressed. It is my hope that you, as her attorney, will familiarize yourself with the complete issues, including her abusive postings on internet sites, her continual mistakes and errors of fact, her refusal to perform comprehensive testing of her device, and her attempts to gain a monetary award based on her unsubstantiated claims.

Please ask Ainsile if the circuit diagram shown in the video is ACTUALLY the circuit which is demonstrated, or a different one.

Please ask Ainslie if the no-load voltage on a fully charged 12-volt battery is expected to be "12 volts" ... or a higher number. Note that the presenter uses the "12 volt" figure as evidence that the batteries are still fully charged--- when it is no such thing.

Please ask Ainslie why one battery was removed from the set of six before the second part of the demo. This has never been explained. I believe I know why, and I will explain and even demonstrate why if necessary (although it will likely result in damage to a component.)

Please ask Ainslie if there was any substantial current flowing in the second part of the demo where a load is heated to nearly 200 degrees C, and if so, whether this current flows during the Oscillations, or during the NON-oscillating portion of the waveform. (Ainslie has claimed repeatedly that the heat in the load cannot be accounted for by the current from the battery and that the batteries recharge and do not deplete during the operation of her circuit. )

Please ask Ainslie to explain the "five or six Watts" figure that the presenter cites at one point, gesturing to an oscilloscope display which shows no such reading.

And further, please get an electronics professional to help you evaluate the oscilloscope displays presented in that video. I have done comprehensive evaluations, but I ask that you get your own, independent, reliable evaluations. Mine can be used as a guide if you like, and your own consultants can confirm or falsify my several points of notice on their own, and explain to you just what these oscilloscope displays indicate.

I protect my identity on the Internet because of threats to myself and those close to me, some of them made by Ainslie herself. If you, Ainslie's attorney of record, would like to know my contact information this can be arranged. However, I fear for my safety and security should Ainslie get hold of this information, therefore I will need some signed paper from you, her attorney of record, stating that my personal information will remain confidential and most especially will not fall into her hands. She has threatened me!

Attached below are screen grabs of oscilloscope displays from the Ainslie video. Each point that I have indicated with a number is a salient point of data that should be described and understood by anyone attempting to evaluate Ainslie's various claims. I am not including my own comments on these points..... they are easily found, though. Anyone who is skilled in the art of oscilloscope usage can look at these points and explain/interpret them for themselves. Note that Ainslie herself has been asked about some of these points and has declined to explain or interpret them.

Sincerely,
the internet poster known here as TinselKoala

As I said, if this attorney needs to know who I am in real life, I will gladly reveal it, under strict non-disclosure agreement, in correspondence between Ainslie's attorney and mine.

[TinselKoala]

Meanwhile.... allow me to point out that a certain device, the Tar Baby, IS being tested, as we speak, in many different ways, and all the testing is documented on cameras and posted to the internet, on this forum, YouTube, and elsewhere. All the testing being done on Tar Baby is applicable to NERD....

The Tar Baby is identical to the NERD RAT device in almost every way, notable exceptions being the white pegboard, the clipleads, and the erroneous markings on the pegboard that the NERD device has. Tar Baby does not have white pegboard, clipleads, or erroneous and misleading markings--- therefore it is NOT a replication of the NERD device.   

Or is it? Does the battery charging effect claimed by the NERDs depend on white pegboard? Clipleads?  I do have some pegboard and white paint on hand, and I'm sure I can find some clipleads around here somewhere, if Wilby insists.

Tar Baby uses the same circuit diagram that has been agreed upon as was used by the device shown in the NERD demo video. It uses the same components and component values (except for its lower capacity batteries). It is driven by a function generator in the same 2 manners that the NERDs show in the demonstration video and it produces the same oscillations and the same oscilloscope displays and readings. It heats a load strongly in the second mode and weakly in the first mode, just as the NERD device does. It has been subjected to many tests that others have come up with and suggested for the NERD device, many that I myself have thought of, and it has even been subjected to the Dim Bulb test. Time-temperature profiles comparing Tar Baby's efficiency as a heater  with a straight DC supply at the same INPUT power levels have been performed (although not yet posted) which show Tar Baby is inefficient and wastes power heating the mosfets. In addition, the Dim Bulb test showed that Tar Baby is not recharging its batteries enough to offset the current drain imposed by the load and the mosfets themselves. Which might seem strange... since it does EVERYTHING ELSE that NERD has actually been shown to do.
(ETA: Even the SOURCE of the oscillations has been tracked down, first in the simulations of the NERD device by .99, humbugger, and others, then in the excellent verbal analyses by MileHigh and .99, and finally by me, experimentally and documented on YT using the Tar Baby device.)

All of this building and testing was performed by me, working alone but with advice and comments and discussion from interested posters and friends, in the two or three weeks previous to this post.

So... I ask again.... WHERE IS THE CORRESPONDING TESTING showing that Ainslie's claims are correct with respect to HER device... but somehow aren't when applied to Tar Baby. I have even offered Tar Baby herself, for side-by-side testing against NERD, with analysis to be performed by the same methods for each. (And of course, BOTH WAYS, her analysis methods and mine).

WHERE IS THE NERD TESTING?

OK... I'll withdraw now and get back to work, testing and explaining the Tar Baby, and looking hopefully for some kind of a real test from Ainslie. But I'm not going to be holding my breath....

[eatenbyagrue]

Guys, I think I have a solution which will satisfy everyone.  I do not know that much about the laws of physics as they apply to electricity.  I know a little about weight and linear motion equations, but here I have to say I am out of my element.  But I do know about the law in general, so I think we can just come to some compromise.


I think Rosemary just needs to lay out her laws of physics as they need to apply to her device in order to achieve overunity.  So like with that quibble you guys had over the heat calculations, Rosemary should just lay out her givens here.  If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.  You guys can come up with your own formulas and make your underunity devices, but Rosemary's formula gives her overunity, so I think she deserves recognition for this.


Rosemary, if I had an overunity prize to give, I would give it to you.  Also, I do not really think it matters whether Rosemary's laws of physics match up exactly with our understanding of them, because laws change all the time, and her interpretation may very well be valid.


Maybe you guys are just reluctant to hand out your overunity prizes because you only have one of them, and you are not yet ready to part with them.  So how about we create a new overunity prize category?  Something like the Free Energy World First, something like that.  We just make a website, award Rosemary the prize for the device she has poured her life work around, and she can maybe preface it with the laws of physics as she sees them and how the device creates energy under those laws, and I think everyone will be happy, no?  Probably no monetary award, but at least she will get the recognition she deserves.