another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary:


Thank you for the links: I will take a look.


SRM.

Truly a pleasure.  And thank YOU Schubert.  There's not many who are THAT brave that they'll publicly acknowledge reading these papers. 

Take very good care of yourself.
Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello guys,

I posted this directly onto Professor's own thread - in the hopes that he'll read this.  Still no answer.  Strange.

My dear Professor,

You were rather public about the display of some very sweet coins you offered as a prize for experimental proof of over unity.  We have now attempted to alert you to our claim for this and, for some reason, you're not READING our challenge.

I am a little concerned that the problem may be with your eyesight.  I know something about this.  I too, am as blind as a bat.  I'm hoping that if I repeatedly call your attention to this claim of ours that - eventually - it'll come into focus.  At it's least there's an outside chance that we'll then reduce the statistical probability of being ignored FOREVER.  And one also HOPES that the fault is, indeed, an oversight.  Indeed.  It would be preferable to the rather sad conclusion that there may be an 'agenda' here - designed to IGNORE our claim - lest it prove successful.  God forbid.

We all know you as a highly professional expert in the art of scientific measurement.  You did such an extraordinary job on your dissertation related to that 9/11 catastrophe.  We also know how actively you advance proof of over unity.  I also know that poor Lawrence Tseung has been trying to alert you to his own claim for this based on the tests that I believe you've completed.  On the whole I think that Lawrence's claim actually proceeds our own.  I would be happy to 'step aside' provided only that you give us some indication that your analysis of those tests were actually based on some applied measurement protocols that conform to the standard requirements.

Do let us know.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And this was then posted in answer to NerzhDishual's comment

@Rosemary Ainslie,

As far I could have caught it, Prof Jones's "very sweet coins ... prize " is (also)
based upon "intuitu personae". Sorry for my Latin.

English translation: by virtue of the personality of the other party
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/latin_to_english/law_patents/138477-intuitu_personae.html

Of coarse, I must be dumb as a bunch of mussels.

Should I create my own prize (I can afford it) that I would act in a similar way.

Very Best

Not sure of the interpretation of intuiti personae.  It's rather ambivalent and wiki insists on giving a French translation.  In any event - I take it that somewhere in Professor's list of qualifications - is the right to disregard a claimant should that claim require scientific evaluation?  Have I got that right?

In which case - I think what's needed here is a full and open account of what exactly is required in order to challenge Professor for those rather coveted coins of his.  Personally, I'm happy to give it my best shot.  After all.  It's not only ME who's claiming we've got INFINITE COP.  It's also very evident in Poynt.99's simulations.  We can't both be wrong.  Surely?

But it may be that these coins are actually already the legal property of Lawrence Tseung.  We just don't know.  We need to find out how those tests of Professor's panned out.  His results were rather ambivalent.  Not entirely sure that he's made a full disclosure yet.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

EDITED - Added an apostrophe

Thus far I've heard nothing.  I'll let you know if he contacts me.

Again, all the best,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, just as a quick synopsis of things.

There have been those personalities - such as Poynty Point who have gone to some considerable trouble to deny claims of over unity.  I can't possibly cover them all.  And nor can I talk with any authority about any of them other than our own claim.  Our own experience is that they first established  the credentials of the claimant.  When they're satisfied that this is lacking - then they deny the intelligence of the claimant.  When they've manged this then they attack the sanity of the claimant.  And so it goes.  In our case - it was rather more urgent - as they also had to attack the technology as we had measured proof.  And lots of it.  In which case it was REQUIRED that I be considerably more stupid and less competent and more lunatic - than average.  But any idiosyncratic aptitudes or failings - of any of those claimants - have NOTHING to do with the issue.

You will notice how Poynty Point seldom addresses me directly, and when he does - it is with a kind of offensive imperiousness.  That's designed to encourage all members and readers to share that disrespect.  Which is why - for instance - that curious Chris felt free to parade his ill mannered, injudicious rejections of our claim with such little preparation and even less justification.  Why Cloxxki feels free to publicly claim that not only am I a FRAUD but a LAZY FRAUD.  What the professional 'nay sayers' - those leading the attack -  depend on is that the sheer weight of their opinion - appropriate or otherwise - will CRUSH the claimant and with it claim.  And therefore, the ONLY thing that they will not communicate - is any residual evidence of any kind of respect at all.  Which is extraordinary.  All that is ever attempted by any claimant - any experimentalist - any  researcher - is that the issue under consideration - the science related to the claim - is also CONSIDERED and DISCUSSED. And THAT - most certainly - does NOT warrant the parade of slanderous and abusive criticism that follows in its wake.

My intention in claiming those prizes is simply based on our evidence that INDEED - we have a valid claim.  Over Unity is alive and well.  And denial of his is now positively obsolete.  At it's least we have scheduled some anomalies that are not consistent with conventional prediction.  That I have not claimed these prizes before is because, frankly, I'm not really that interested in actually getting hold of them.  Nor are any of our collaborators.  What we decided was to use our rights to claim this as an excuse to EXPOSE the fact that not only have those unity barriers been defeated - but THAT their denial of the fact is in line with their AGENDA and NOT with the evidence.  Poynty's own SIMULATIONS PROVE OUR CLAIM.  He therefore needs must re-invent the entire basis of electrical energy measurement - in order to deny this.  And by forcing him to do any public evaluation at all - EXPOSES these rather absurd mathematical inventions.  He is, most assuredly, depending on the combined ignorance of the members in standard measurement protocols.  Else there would be a howl of protests at the absurdities he's expecting you all to endorse. 

And my need to remind you that our claim is valid is precisely because there are many of you who are not aware of this fact.  There is an assumption that the unity barrier is still up and functioning.  It's not.  It's dead and buried.  I very much doubt that ours was the first evidence.  It certainly wont be the last.  But more to the point - our own technology - albeit having some nascent potentials at delivering higher energy - is already virtually archaic at its inception.  With Rossi's breakthroughs - I KNOW that there will be many, many more.  And it does not help to say that Rossi's invention is not OU - it's argued as LENR.  LENR is, itself, not fully understood.  Or fully explained.  We're at the beginning.  The door is hardly opened.  And that's all a very good thing.  But this progress is never going to 'take off' until those breaches are considered.  Very, very carefully. Nothing to do with the claimant.  Everything to do with the claim. Otherwise the perfectly excellent objectives of these forums - will be heavily compromised.  And they'll simply fade into the background noise - in the face of the real developmental thrust that will be OFF forum.  Which would be sad.  Open source is something to be protected.  And it has a potential dynamic to lead in this new science - rather than simply fade from view. 

Which may or may not explain this detour in our own thread objectives.  And hopefully - for once - I'll be able to expose that 'agenda' - be it financed or otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

I have started to read the first page of ROSSI JAP 1:


Two things shock me 


What's is a negative signal ? Your MOSFET are P or N type, (Yeah that damned MOSFET question again)... ?


Inductor STORE energy and does not "create" energy...


1) The MOSFET is ON: current flow and dissipate in R (the inductance heater).
2) The MOSFET is OFF current flow back into  battery and dissipate a second time...
3) But problem the energy returning into the battery will  be less before charging the inductance...
4) So I'm highly worried here  And the fact is battery absorb very badly CEMF impulse. What   
    about the efficiency of this method !?
5) For OU operation the inductance must be return more energy than he have stored previously !!!
6) It's very very difficult to measure the energy contained in a spike if not nearly "impossible"...


IMPORTANT EDIT:

7) Reading after, you speak about self-oscillation, and you argue that the eventual energy come from here...

So, if it this the case this no more a Rosemary Invention, you amplify energy from resonance: this a Rotoverter/ Resonance TESLA and Hector Perez tech...

8 ) Amplification by resonance will only work if you have a Q > 1 circuit:
For this L must be big before C and R to have Q > 1
You can calculate by this formula Q = 1/R SquareRoot (L/C) [notice the L against C...]

9) high Q = Current/voltage amplification and a possibility to extract the amplified energy, in certain condition...

10) Problem unless error of my part, the battery is equivalent a to big C and L is rather low...
      So the Q of the circuit is very poor, how you can amplify energy !?

11) Crucial question do you use resonance amplification to operate this ?
12) You speak about Ltseung: look like he use the same system Q amplification, if he use resonance and Q amplification his FLEET is nothing more than modified Transverter/MRA tech...
13) Stanley Meyer and Joule Thief tech are very look like to high Q resonant amplifier the C (and R also) is the water cell in the WFC and C (and R also) is the CFL in the Joule Thief/Ringer...

14) Currently I build a large power MRA, with a Q of 10 minimum to test if the Resonance amplification theory is CORRECT OR NOT...

15) If this theory is CORRECT it can explain nearly all the Overunity phenomena and devices that use Coils/Caps and pulsed or AC signal...


16) For eventual "Debunker": This a theory not a fact, and like every theory in te world she's can be TRUE, FALSE, or even partially TRUE...
Best Regard, SRM.