another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[chessnyt]

@Rosemary:
I stumbled upon this post from another forum today and quite by accident.  The thread was about an open letter to Peter Lindemann in relation to Stanley Meyer technology. 

"I was the first to show over 1.0 cop with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit,
which it is over 1.0 cop. I showed both overunity AND over 1.0 cop.
I did this not only with a 10,000 sample per screen sample with exported
data to a spreadsheet to prove the #'s, I also did it with battery draw
down tests showing MORE joules of work in heat produced that what left
the battery. The protocols that I followed ARE the protocols that were
designed by British Petroleum (BP) to validate and certify her original tests.
I didn't get 17cop they BP certified, but enough to prove the concept
is valid." -- Aaron (Energetic Forum)

It seems that people everywhere have great things to say about you, Rosemary     I must concur.


Warmest regards,

Chess

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary:
I stumbled upon this post from another forum today and quite by accident.  The thread was about an open letter to Peter Lindemann in relation to Stanley Meyer technology. 

"I was the first to show over 1.0 cop with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit,
which it is over 1.0 cop. I showed both overunity AND over 1.0 cop.
I did this not only with a 10,000 sample per screen sample with exported
data to a spreadsheet to prove the #'s, I also did it with battery draw
down tests showing MORE joules of work in heat produced that what left
the battery. The protocols that I followed ARE the protocols that were
designed by British Petroleum (BP) to validate and certify her original tests.
I didn't get 17cop they BP certified, but enough to prove the concept
is valid." -- Aaron (Energetic Forum)

It seems that people everywhere have great things to say about you, Rosemary     I must concur.


Warmest regards,

Chess

Thanks Chess. 
Actually - the truth is that this technology of ours has been the target of an attack from hell - orchestrated by some experimenters who played the 'friendship' card when they were actually intent on pulling the plug.  I was SERIOUSLY duped.  They did a good job though.  But history has a way of presenting the actual facts.  It may take a while.  But we'll get there eventually.

In any event Chess.  The facts are that there is NOTHING in our technology that could compete with Rossi's.  We're working on a '4th generation' schematic - that may just be more exploitable.  But needless to say that is NOT going Open Source.  Certainly NOT until these forums are cleaned up.

Kindest regards,
Rosie 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK - ANOTHER post.  Golly.  You really are rather obsessed with this thread.  It seems you're always THERE.  LURKING.  LOL

Rosemary, your last posts demonstrate that you STILL do not understand the difference between power and energy. After all this time, that's really sad. I challenge you YET AGAIN to measure my TinselKoil in exactly the same way that you measure your circuit and see what you come up with.

I'll pass on this little measurement of your circuit TK.  It's just way too boring. And you're complaining about MY protocols?  Have you seen Poynty's?  They're decidedly more adventurous than the rather tame evidence in our own tests.  Power and Energy - and niceties of expression?  I'm not sure that they're strictly apposite to the discussion with Poynt Point.  My only concern is that Poynty seems to think that a battery DELIVERS a negative current flow resulting in a NEGATIVE wattage.  Very confusing.  You'll need to explain things to him.  Don't worry too much about me.  I've got my collaborators to keep me on track. And it only matters that our paper is correct.

And I see that you are still making claims about " top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES " -- claims that you have never been able to substantiate. I'll remind you and your readers that some of these companies have been contacted in the past couple years concerning your claims... and they never heard of you.

Yes.  I remember something about this.  I believe one of the collaborators took the trouble to phone ABB Research in SOUTH Carolina - knowing full well that I dealt with ABB research in North Carolina.  I advised all and sundry to contact a Professor Gaunt at UCT to confirm the existence of that SASOL bursary award.  For some reason they declined.  Now.  One of the reasons that ABB Research (NC) may not have FULL record of those tests of ours - is possibly because the CEO (can't recall his name off hand), a technician - Eddie Tarnow (I think was his name) and a certain Colin Bowler - who were involved in those tests, were variously 'sacked' or put on early retirement - within 3 months of those results coming out.  And it is in the light of this rather draconian reaction to this accreditation that they were involved with - that I am MOST reluctant to advise you about the names of any of the others who are - to the best of my knowledge - still employed in those companies.  God forbid that they too endure that kind of consequence - simply because they accredited some results.  But I do have the security of their ALL their 'written permissions' to reference those accreditations.  If i did not - then I'd have no leg to stand on - should they try and get me to retract those claims.

Regarding my reluctance to EVER disclose the names of those academics that I have EVER been associated with - is simply because these forums are a cesspool - and it would take no time at all for them to be DISGRACED - in the way that Fleischman and Pons were disgraced.  Not exactly fair.  And frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  Under usual circumstances, when someone professes something - in writing - then it's believed UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.  For some reason you all seem to assume that all presentations are LIES until DISPROVED.  Which is NOT how our legal system works.  And the fact that you ASSUME lies is because you - all of you detractors - seem to be more familiar with this use than with its alternatives.  Frankly - I'm just not clever enough to lie.  I'd need to remember them all.  And at my age - my memory is NOT dependable.

Let's see your documentation of these supposed tests. If your invention is so great and was confirmed by all these power engineering companies...... why aren't they using your invention? Oh... wait..... your "invention" isn't an invention at all.... it's just a simple mosfet switching circuit, naively cobbled together and incompetently measured, and does nothing of interest to real engineers at all.

Yes.  I suppose you could rely on that as an explanation.  I would have thought that its more in line with the need to get validation of these results through our academics.  God knows.  SASOL actively promoted this.  But to no avail.     And I'm also trying to progress this.  But it's uphill.  The problem is that they won't even look at a demonstration.  Which means we're pretty well stymied.  At least until our paper is published.

You have had ample opportunity over the years to produce documentation of the testing you refer to above... but you can't, because it doesn't exist.

Golly.  I've got MOUNTAINS of documentation.  What are you talking about?

Anyway TK - Thanks for this post.  It's always a pleasure.  It gives me ENDLESS scope to represent - not only historical facts - but the reminder to our readers that we've got this blow away technology.  Nothing near as excellent as Rossi's work.  But HOLD YOUR HORSES guys.  Who knows WHAT is yet to come?

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[PhiChaser]

Rosemary,
For the record, I think that your circuit does work (at least I believe that YOU believe it does). I have a difficult time picturing someone with such a depth of knowledge about electronics also being totally absent of knowledge about how to measure a circuit properly.
Your 'little drawings' say a lot more than most of the posts on this thread, truth be told. If I had a million dollars I would certainly test it myself. Heck, I would fly down and take a look at your circuit in person if that were the case... I STILL say there is a mobius configuration in there!
To come wading into this 'cesspool' time and again to fight your fight is either fanciful delusion that this forum feeds, or you know that you are RIGHT (at least from your point of view, granted). There is also the posibility that you are WRONG. I don't think you are lying, that just seems a little stupid for someone with a brain. The idea that you have some ulterior motive by posting a circuit here just to be ridiculed just doesn't makes much sense to me either.
Unless you're nuts.
Your comment about the pajamas proved to me that your aren't.
If your circuit works then get it out there however you can.... Not sure this is the place to do that, but public forums are great for finding people of similar interests. Sounds like you've tried to get the right people involved (at least the IEEE anyways).
If I was an 'academic', I'm not sure I would post on this forum so you do have a point there... Not sure how many 'highly educated' people actually frequent this particular forum. You do see the occasional 'nutball' fly through, I'll have to admit...
Mostly I just wanted to say that I was wrong; You shouldn't throw in the towel. Well... Maybe throw in the towel on trying to convice certain folks around here... I haven't read your blogs, and only understood half your paper, so I'm still not really qualified to give an opinion on the matter... Love reading your posts BTW!

Forgive the minor intrusion, I'll just sit back (again) and see what happens along with everyone else!

Seriously, best wishes Rosemary!

Derrick

EDIT: That pdf on scope measurements will keep me busy when I get one eventually...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Derrick,  It took a while to get back in here.  I WISH Harti would attend to this.  There's something SERIOUSLY wrong with his software.  Every now and then it goes into a loop back mode where I can't get out of the 'home page'.  And I know that there are others have the same problem.  Thanks for the encouragement.  But I really need to stress this.  The reason that I work on these forums is because this is really the 'seed bed' of technologies that need to stay open source.  And the reason I've gone to these extraordinary lengths to REFUTE those DISCLAIMERS - is that IF we don't, then as day follows night - our new technologies will be shrouded in perpetual mystery - which is a HIGHLY exploitable condition for our monopolists.

Here's a kind of analogy.  You remember how 'GOOD ART' was confined to acknowledged schools.  Out of that school then art was irrelevant.  Then came along a whole bunch of 'rebels' who 'usurped' that art AWAY from those so called 'experts' and DID THEIR OWN THING.  That's the Van Gogh's and even the Edvard Munch's of this world.  And today there is 'modern art' that realises considerably more marketable value than our classicists - our David's and such like.  Well.  It's my considered opinion that the same thing is happening in our sciences.  What a whole bunch of people are now doing is challenging our current paradigms related to physics.  And this is resulting in a WELCOME ENGAGEMENT by a really wide and representative body of our public.  Even amongst the so called 'experts' - those trained in physics - there's a schism that is as as wild and wide and broad and deep - and just as unbridgeable or impassable - as the Great Canyon.  Everyone's off at a tangent - trying to find the 'solution' - not only to our energy crisis - but to all those PARADOXES that dog our classicists.  Schism is EVERYWHERE.  And the two 'strongest' schools that are clouting each other for recognition - are our String theorists versus our Quantum and Classical theorists.  We, the lay public - are not aware of the niceties of that argument - but we're aware of all that doubt that's associated with science.  We certainly KNOW - with growing alarm - that our scientists DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.   

Now.  Back to these forums where we're 'fed' - as a general daily reminder - like prayers at an assembly - is the need to DEFER to classical theory.  And here's the essence of that 'schism'.  The classicist CLAIMS that our four forces - are also a FULL DESCRIPTION OF EVERYTHING.  And on the other hand, we have our String theorists who CLAIM that our FOUR FORCES are only an expression of A 5th and HIDDEN FORCE.  AND, while the most of us are not aware of the niceties, as I mentioned, we sure as HELL know where these questions are pointing.  This means that - IF indeed, those four forces are NOT THE FULL ARGUMENT - then we should, by rights question all those thermodynamic constraints that they REQUIRE.   And it is my fond belief that these forums are a DIRECT RESULT of that RIGHT TO QUESTION. 

BUT, by the same token, IF we allow that continued daily DIET based on the argument that NOTHING CAN EXCEED THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES, then we'll be starved out of the required engagement in this new science.  These new paradigms.  Which are being forged, even as we speak.  But more critically, if we do NOT engage - on a hands on basis - with all the experimental and experiential evidence that we can muster - then we - the LAY PUBLIC will again lose touch with the essentials of our own logic - required to find our own reasons - and we'll DEFER to the so called EXPERT to progress our science.  And history as taught us WELL.  When they USURP that authority to do our thinking for us - then they ALSO engineer that science to their own best advantage.  And that has not, historically, established the greatest good for the greatest number.

And I have long been intimately aware of the gross abuses of the so called 'authority' that is flaunted on these forums.  They have managed to systematically DISMISS every experimental evidence of OVER UNITY that has ever dared present itself here.  And the worst of it is this.  It is done with a SUPREME disregard to even the ESSENCE OF ACKNOWLEDGED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.  It is no ACCIDENT - that Poynty forged those multiple and confusing ACRONYMS to support his arguments.  In other words - to put it bluntly - there has been a over use of some rather contemptible, and less than scientific analyses applied to some highly credible evidence - all managed with a disgraceful abuse of our required scientific standards in order to CONFUSE those members who actively engage here.  And they've got away with it for FAR TOO LONG.  It makes not one iota of difference to our own claim.  But I can ONLY with any authority at all - ARGUE OUR OWN CLAIM.  Which is why it is topical to this thread.  But the problem is far, far wider.  It's as rampant as a plague - and it won't be stopped until someone stands up and confronts them.  Then it can get some much needed fresh air - some much needed medication - before we can reclaim the purpose of these forums.  And I am ENTIRELY committed to OPEN SOURCE.  Which means that I must, unfortunately, also confront some strong personalities that have rather dominated 'popular opinion' to the detriment of science and our own best interests - especially as it relates to our need for CLEAN AND GREEN. And I intend remaining uncredentialed PRECISELY so that I can belong to this new and emerging school that is NOT dependent on those classical conclusions.

I hope this post won't be construed as a rant.  It's meant to be a red alert.
Kindest regards,
Rosie