another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

While it may be true that you have responded to all posts, you have provided few answers of any help or substance to replicators or those reviewing your papers. 

Are you still implying that you're 'reviewing'?  And on what authority?   And are you a 'self appointed' reviewer also implying that TK is 'replicating'? 

The problem as I see it picowatt is this.  This thread was proposed for a multiplicity of reasons - and as I've said - it's objects have rather moved with the wind - shifted with the times.  However.  It was NEVER intended for any of you members to try and 'review'.  Had this EVER been my intention then I would most certainly have produced the corrected papers.  And if you were to ASSUME the right to review then you would need to disclose your proof of credentials.  Which would also require a full disclosure of your name in order to validate those credentials. And for you to propose any kind of review process in the context of a thread that has been 'blazed' to hell with a parade of unprofessional calumny, slander and traducement that is probably unparalleled in any of these forums - is a sheer parody of pretension and absurdity.  It CANNOT constitute a review.  A properly conducted review - by definition - is done in private.  And depending on the terms of that contract - it is either between the reviewer and the editor - or between the reviewer and the collaborators and the editor.  PRECISELY to obviate minor or major amendments that may be required.  I am assured that it is a rare paper that does not need amendment - in the same way that an article may require editing  - or a book - prior its to publication.  Which makes your rather public efforts in this regard - less than professional - less than appropriate and considerably less than morally acceptable.  You IMPLY errors and you PARADE your opinion as FACT before a full determination.   A public review is a contradiction in terms.  The only possible public evaluation would be with a full DEMONSTRATION.  And thus far we have NOT given this.  Else the protocols require that the reviewer accept the facts as given and do not challenge them unless there is clear and unequivocal proof of error - fraudulent or otherwise. And you have PRESUMED much in this regard. 

My further concerns here are based on your rather reckless and public advisement that our Q1 MOSFET is faulty.  We had NEVER changed that transistor.  Certainly not for any of the tests shown in that paper.  The only ones we replaced - two or possibly three of them (I can't quite remember) - were on the Q2 array.  Which also means that if Q1 was faulty for the duration of that First Test then it was and is faulty on all subsequent tests.  While we have, indeed, subsequently replaced that Q1 - it STILL and NONETHELESS - gives us the same values as reported in our papers.  I look forward to showing PROOF of this.  In fact, since this has now become such an overriding concern of yours -  I shall take the trouble to move through a variety of those transistors to PROVE that your complaint related to its integrity - IS UTTERLY VOIDABLE. And I would then demand that you PUBLICLY retract those 'assumptions' of yours.  IF indeed it is acting in a way that is atypical - then it is not dependent on the vagaries of one - but of ALL those transistors.  And it is also MEASURABLE and DEMONSTRABLE and REPEATEDLY so - which, at its least, would make it 'of interest' to SCIENCE.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

  to PICOWATT continued/...


Correctly you should have requested that we 'check' the MOSFET to determine that it has not somehow been compromised - IF that was your concern.  It is a very easy test to manage this.  And you most certainly should NOT advertise as FACT what has not yet been PROVED.  That is both 'reckless' and 'unprofessional'.  Added to which - if you recall - you asked the question related to the voltage measured on channel 3 with the kind of persistence that - at its kindest - would be considered abusive.  I am NOT in your time zone.  I SLEEP while most of your posts are made.  Why then do you DEMAND such a prompt reply?  And that demand of yours interspersed with abusive echoes from your acolytes as they take that 'reckless' advisement of yours as 'fact'.  They use it as an opportunity to rampage through another 5 pages of this thread, in the space of ONE NIGHT - with ever more samples of their somewhat reckless and liberal doses of slander.  And why should I reply to you at ALL?  Again.  I most certainly am NOT looking for a review.  What you advised was that you were going to replicate.  That is your choice.  I put it to you that you are not qualified to review.  And if you are - THEN PROVE IT.

Then.  To get back to more rather glaring evidence of collusion and collaboration between you and TK et al.  You ENDORSED his video where he showed the oscillations taken over the battery and the load.  Had you been an EXPERT â€" in any sense of the word â€" then you would have done better to advise him that he was measuring the 'wrong thing'.  When I pointed this out â€" together with the glaring omission of some required phase shifts, he came back with a video that was even more glaringly inappropriate.  Why did you not point out to him that the phase shifts referred to have nothing whatsoever to do with the signal from the transistor and the load resistor?  IF indeed you are that EXPERT as you're trying so hard to IMPLY - then you should most certainly be explaining how utterly inappropriate was that nonsense.  That TK could ever seriously propose to establish the rate of current flow from the battery based on a product of the voltage across that load resistor and the battery is alarming.  And that he does this with the improbable evidence of perfect ‘in phase’ voltages â€" beggars belief.  Not only are there no phase shifts â€" but what adjustments did he make for impedance?  This is all the proof needed to show that he knows next to nothing about power analysis or that he hopes that no-one reading here does.  And to further compound his generally compounded confusions â€" he then shows us all - a veritable miracle of coincidence in phase shift between that battery and the resistor?  Which would require the direct intervention of God Himself to orchestrate such a remarkable degree of anomalous co-incidence.  Such PERFECT correspondence would exceed the standard model predictions with implications that put over unity in the shade.  And then too.  He continues to qualify this utterly improbable evidence by giving us a second video where he tries to equate the phase shift in line with the voltage across the transistor and the load?  So utterly OFF the subject.  So far from the point as our Cape is from the North Pole.  So distant from relevance as to be laughable.  And yet YOU and HE SERIOUSLY propose that you're EXPERTS and qualified to do any kind of REVIEW AT ALL?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now - I'm still not finished.  To get back to the problem that you saw where the GATE should be entirely ON yet no current is shown to flow from the battery supply.  The OFFSET term is most certainly related to the choice of AC or DC coupling.  Not only was this explained to me but I know this because when and if I apply the AC coupled option then the only thing that varies is that zero reference.  And my advices were most certainly correct.  You should NOT apply the voltage as per the display - but you should superimpose an AC value.  Which is its PEAK TO PEAK value.  But then too - you more than anyone - should be able to explain why the OFFSET on the function generator can vary that reference even further.  And very obviously it is able to move that zero setting to even LOWER than the actual reference as an AC coupled reference.  In effect, instead of loudly and rather repetitively assuring us all that either the instrument is wrong - or that the settings are wrong or that the MOSFET is wrong - you should have known that the DC presentation of the voltage on channel 3 is qualified by other factors.  The performance of the MOSFET is not the result of serendipity.  The position of the zero crossing line on the LeCroy is not subject to vagary.  And it is both possible and feasible to entirely restrict the flow of current depending on that offset. It is determined by the applied OFFSET from a signal generator - whether it's a function generator or whether it's a 555.  Again.  I look forward to showing this in due course. Then to get back to your point where you allege that should I default to AC coupling then I’d corrupt my machine and all its stored data.  What nonsense.  One can choose AC or DC coupling without any ‘damage’ to the machine at all.  We set it to DC because we’re trying to determine a DC value as it relates to the battery supply. 

So.  It is my opinion that your paraded excess of partiality - your attempts at embarrassing me by your continual contradiction of our claim - your obvious lack of knowledge of power analysis - or alternatively - your readiness to endorse TK's obvious lack of knowledge about this - is proof enough that your intentions here are to DENY the evidence.  Which, in my opinion is less than impartial.  And, in any event, I put it to you that you are wasting your time.  There is only one way to evaluate the facts - and that is by demonstration.  Which we will most certainly do.  And now that I have this much meat to show the level of neurotic denial required against our claim - I am more motivated than I have been in a long while. I intend buying our little demonstration WaveJet LeCroy â€" which thus far has only been on loan.  And I will then have the real pleasure of spending some time filming this to show you all how it is that our numbers in those papers are correctly presented.  Until then I propose that you try and pretend to some level of impartiality and try and correct some of those sad little videos of TK's that he's relying on to earn that fee that he boasts will buy him his Buick and his little house at the coast.  Else you, like him, will lose all credibility based on an obvious want of some unbiased assessments.  And if you wish to pretend to be a reviewer in some new and eccentric context â€" then feel free.  I for one won’t endorse that pretense.

Regards to you picowatt.
Rosemary

changed 'lack' to 'excess'

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and knowledgeable experimentalist,

Here is a posting that Stefan did about a year ago with a protocol for the testing and evaluation of the device with a CLAIM of COP>INFINITY ....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg285971/#msg285971    Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 10:28:48 AM

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the
COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there should be a discussion on Stefan's recommendations on the testing and evaluation to be done in a timely manner the items number one (1) through number six (6) is a good starting point for anyone involved doing verifiable testing. There will be of some numbers that will need some correcting for content and new developments that has happened from one year ago prior to any new testing done or required.


1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .


Cheers,
FTC

[fuzzytomcat]

@fuzzy::
I see that Evan Robinson, the "page coordinator" of the PESWiki page, has the WRONG DIAGRAM up as the "latest" schematic.
Pretty strange, huh? Maybe somebody should email him so he can correct his error. Also I see that the original Quantum circuit is also published on that same page. And on the Mygeni page... YET ANOTHER incorrect circuit diagram is posted.
That's three incorrect circuit diagrams from a single person... who is now in the Tax Preparation business. Where are the "experts" and "academics" that signed off on that one?

Hi Tk,

Yep believe me Evan Robinson was sent several e-mails to each address that was available, on the Mygeni I have actually signed up but haven't attacked the errors yet just to give him a chance to possibly catch up with Rosemary's circus side show. It is very strange though Rosemary insists one COP>INFINITY device schematic but yet the one in her blog site is wrong, the one in paper titled "Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure" is wrong and now the one at PESwiki is wrong also. There is apparently a huge break down in communication between all the authors of the COP>INFINITY papers and then the YouTube video is a total disaster by all technical engineering standards.

I do think that possibly one of the authors is responsible for the YouTube video and or the editing is Riaan Theron whom might of done the two (2) 3D videos on Rosemary's "dooziedont" YouTube account. Riaan Theron of South Africa a expert, and Rosemary needs some kind of a fancy 3D rendering of the Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing blah blah THESIS, and he could do it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo )  there has been emails also sent to him to find out if he was involved as a author and collaborator in the COP>INFINITY papers and video production.

Cheers,
Fuzzy