another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well then Poynty. 

Unlike you, we have applied measurement protocols that stand up to scrutiny and have the very real merit of conforming to the standard model - that prove our claim.  As I've mentioned we'd be more than happy to demonstrate this.  It seems however that you're rather more anxious to ignore our protocols and apply your own.  That certainly will disqualify our claim.  But I wonder if you could also take the trouble to list that criteria as a required qualification for your prize.  Then I think that we will all know better than to take that prize offer seriously.  And advise Professor Steven E Jones that I, for one, am increasingly concerned that he's actually not 'fighting the cause' so to speak, as he seems to pretend.  From where I sit he actually seems determined to ignore or disprove any claims and claimants both.  Not nice.  And not unlike yourself, come to think of it.  No wonder he gets his internet identity confused with your own.  I also happen to know he has the same heavy dependency on an overuse of undefined acronyms.  And I can see why.  There's no better way to spread confusion and doubt.  Always required if you're going to attack experimental evidence - certainly for purposes of hanging onto your coins or prizes or what have you. 

Anyway Poynt Point.  It's been a salutary little episode.  I believe a first.  I'm not sure that anyone before has managed to expose the extent of your 'strange science'.  Frankly we all assumed that you were well able to do elementary power analysis.  And all this time you were promoting an entirely different thing altogether. Still not altogether sure what it is.  Perhaps you can give us paper on it one day.  And when you write it don't forget to add that dialogue with those awe struck academics who are relegated to the sidelines and allowed very little say.  It's a rather entertaining convention you've managed there. 

I take it that our own results are thereby DISMISSED?  Would that be a fair description?  Based on the fact that our measurements do not comply to those required by yourself - and regardless of the fact that they comply to all known conventional methods of measurements.  That's a fair summation I think.  Oh.  And of course, because I myself am an amateur - halfwit - with no schooling to speak of and even less intelligence. 

Seems fair and impartial on the face of it.  So.  I'll not trouble you for that claim.  I'll just reserve the right to revisit this claim of ours should I continue to see that liberal attack that you manage against our technology and against any other claims that happen to conflict with your own eccentric mathematics.  I think you may need some reminding.  Otherwise God knows.  You'll eventually manage to DISPROVE all valid claims of over unity.  And that would be a crying shame.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

What's needed here is some kind of summation on the history of this. I've reworked this because the post was too long.

For the record.  From the get go - about 12 years ago - we could not get our demonstration to the academic table despite HUGE efforts.  Our First claim related to experimental evidence of COP>17.  About 20 engineers - probably closer to 30 - had seen that experiment.  Eventually we demonstrated this - and conducted other tests for - experts in SASOL, BP, ABB research (in North Carolina), SPESCOM and many other smaller electrical engineering firms.   Those listed above ALLOWED US TO USE THEIR NAMES AS ACCREDITORS in the publication of a paper on this which we FINALLY managed in a technical journal.  The then CEO of SASOL even went so far as offering a BURSARY AWARD to UCT to take this study further.  And that offer was declined.  We also demonstrated this apparatus at the MTN SCIENCENTRE - for an extended 10 days - ostensibly to alert those scientists at a conference there - to the existence of this claim of ours.  Not ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS even DEIGNED to see the demonstration which was available and in FULL SWING for the duration of that conference. 

That's some of the early history around some of the thesis behind these tests.

emphasis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Anyway.  To continue/..

Now.  I DARE NOT include the history of this on these forums - which was the 'second generation' of this circuit's history.  Because that will simply engender a renewed attack.  Suffice it to say that the test was replicated - a paper was written and submitted to the IEEE - and it was REJECTED without going to review.  And subsequently the replicator denied those results.  3 of the 7 of us collaborators then embarked on a campaign to ENTIRELY DISMISS THE EVIDENCE based on multiple criminal allegations against me personally including claims of fraud, deceit and willful misadventure.  Alternatively, I was accused of ignorance, foolishness, stupidity, senility, poor dress sense, and on, and on, and on.  And, to boot I apparently have a penchant for wearing my pyjamas in public.  If only you knew.  I'm female.  Very much so.  Which means I MULTI TASK.  When I write physics I'm thinking 'SHOES'.  When I'm engaged in experiments I'm thinking 'SHOPPING'.  We all do.  We're genetically encoded.  I most CERTAINLY won't wear my pyjamas in public.  God forbid.  It would be impossible to accessorize.  Not that any of this matters unduly.  I only mention this to show you the sheer freedom of choice that they allow themselves in those EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS to diminish me in direct proportion to their denial of this experimental evidence.  It's actually quite funny.  In fact, reading their hate blog is the one thing in the day that has me rolling with laughter.  It's hysterical.  If I need a 'lift' - then I take a dip in there.  Such obsessive INTEREST.  Golly.

Anyway I need to get back on topic.  Here's where I made a BIG mistake.  I ASSUMED - that there was an ocean of goodwill in these 'energy' obsessed forums.  How little did I know. I really had NOT considered the enormous weight of all that competing and vested interest.  It simply  DID NOT OCCUR TO ME.  There was a billion dollar GLOBAL industry - based on carbon based fuels and nuclear power generation - that RELIES on perpetuating the STATUS QUO.  And to perpetuate that status quo they only need a few well fielded scientists to challenge the academics, those Fleischmann and Pons' of this world.  And on the other side it only needs a few well schooled in psyops  - to challenge the forums where claimants dare 'claim' any kind of over unity at all.  And it's that psyops program that I'd like to expose in this little exercise here exclusively related to THE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF POWER ACCORDING TO POYNTY POINT.

The schedule follows...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here's that list.
It is my considered opinion ...
.   that anyone with 27 years of experience in electronics cannot seriously compute wattage from a measured voltage WITHOUT the flow of current.
.   that nor can anyone seriously propose that the energy is not WHOLLY conserved but that Power IS.
.   that notwithstanding Poynt's argument to the contrary, a battery supply source is NOT capable of delivering a negative current flow.
.   that convention has adequately described polarities related to wattage analysis which convention impeccably represents all power measurements.
.   that to apply his protocols one would first need to upend standard protocols.
.   that it is catastrophically incorrect to claim voltage across a load resistor is consistent with the direction of the flow of current from a supply source.
.   that Poynty relies on ASSUMPTION that our oscilloscope probes are reading the incorrect battery voltage.
.   which flies in the face of the evidence where we apply those probes directly to the battery terminals
.   that Poynty relies on eccentric and illogical deductions related to all these points to refute our claim
.   that he also relies on eccentric and illogical deductions to refute his own simulated evidence
.   that he relies on ill defined terminologies and acronyms to deliberately confuse our members with the impression of some higher knowledge
.   notwithstanding the fact that he is aware of the need of all science to be clear - as is Professor Jones
.   that there are those members who are not aware of the mathematical corruptions that he continually applies
.   that they are both committed to the denial of all over unity claims - in principle and regardless of the evidence
.   that the offer of a prize is a lure to the unsuspecting claimants that there is any serious intention of doing a sincere evaluation
.   that they apply techniques of scorn - gossip - and traducement and slander -  to the claimants in order to diminish the claim by association
.   that it is grossly unprofessional to engage at that level as this is, indeed, ACTIONABLE - SUBJECT only to a disclosure of their names
.   that the stronger the claim the stronger is that traducement and the greater then is their criminal indulgence in slander
.   that this is exercised as an abuse of 'freedom of speech' which in its essence requires a full accountability and disclosure of their names
.   and that they hide behind pseudonyms and optional internet identities to avoid that accountability
.   that their efforts are well rewarded

Which I think more or less covers it.  If there are other points I'll add them.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

HOT OFF THE PRESS GUYS.

Professor Steven E Jones has recommended the following for his PRIZE!   

Conditions for the OUR award:

1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes electrical, mechanical and heat-producing devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question.  The working device must be replicable.

2) Two OUR team members (agreed upon by the applicant) will make additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application, at no cost to the applicant.

3) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device (within thirty days of the completion of the OUR tests) -- then the Award will be granted.


the OUR team.

Dear Professor Jones,
We as claimants are therefore FULLY QUALIFIED TO SUBMIT OUR CLAIM.  In point of fact - WE'RE OVER QUALIFIED.  The problem is this.  We also rather depend on standard measurement protocols.  Poynty Point wants us to apply something else.  DO YOU AGREE WITH HIS INTENDED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL?

And may I remind you.  We have SENT YOU OUR PAPERS.  WHY DO YOU IGNORE OUR OWN PRESENTATIONS?  Do you ALSO recommend that
-  IF the claim happens to be in the form of a paper that is also submitted for publication
-  and IF that paper  ALSO includes my own name as first author

THEN  that the claim is also then DISMISSED - alternatively - IGNORED.  Because THAT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE.  Kindly address this our CONCERN.

Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
Another point - since I'm editing everywhere.  I realise it is ENTIRELY unlikely that either Jones or Poynty Point will ever agree to a demonstration
let alone an independent evaluation.   They dare not.  They'd have to CONCEDE that our circuit claim is ENTIRELY CORRECT.