another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[powercat]

I don't really understand why you guys keep harassing Rosemary.  She has done a lot of hard work and has probably developed the first overunity device in history.  And with COP of infinity, this is not just slightly over unity but quite an invention.  Just let her work and publish her results in peace.  If you don't like her device, you can make your own, or is this jealousy because you have not developed an over unity device yourself yet?

Do you research into the subject that you make comments on, It has been clear for many years that Rosemary circuit is not OU.
Clearly you would say I am wrong. Okay then show us all your working OU replication. I didn't think you could,
nobody credible has been able to do that because all Rosemary has is a claim and nothing but a claim,
it is now legendary as is her stubbornness to face reality.

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys - Fuzzy's posts are usually monitored.  If Stefan's lifted this it's because he's now given Fuzzy license to flame this thread to death.  He's done this once before and I'm sure that he'll do this again and again.  I think he's decided that neither TK nor Poynty are putting up enough of a fight. 

Sorry to the three readers, I'm here to give Rosemary the "PRIZE"  she so deserves and demands ....

No no no .... not one of money, I do not yield to false Over Unity demands!!!!

One of acknowledgement !!!

Rosemary Ainslie has won the most prestigious of all and will be featured this month at the grand opening of http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org this month !!!

She will have her own folder in the Over Unity Scams and Shams !!! Rosemary will have every document in existence from her beginning starting with the four (4) Patent Applications she made as the "INVENTOR" of electronic circuits until the NERD circuit today, including forum postings, e-mail correspondence, Rosemary's self made news articles and Quantum article plus forum postings and blog excerpts.

SO ...... congratulations Rosemary on you having the longest running fraudulent Over Unity scam going for over ten (10) years and the well deserved "PRIZE" you are going to get like it or not you "WON" !!!!

Well all .... don't miss the grand opening of the new NON Profit "Open Source Research and Development" site which includes a 24/7 "LIVE" broadcast feed w/ chat room http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment ( not a forum ) we will be featuring devices from the inventors or producers eventually and hopefully from around the world.


FuzzyTomCat

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Do you research into the subject that you make comments on, It has been clear for many years that Rosemary circuit is not OU.
Clearly you would say I am wrong. Okay then show us all your working OU replication. I didn't think you could,
nobody credible has been able to do that because all Rosemary has is a claim and nothing but a claim,
it is now legendary as is her stubbornness to face reality.

Guys when I get powercat, Fuzzy AND TK - on one page - then I've got the 'trolls from hell'.    It seems that Harti has really 'Let loose the dogs of war'.  LOL.  In any event, IF there were any truth in this post of powercat's - then I'm afraid that Fuzzy himself has rather proved the lie.      For those who are NOT aware of the history here - then this is the link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

You may notice for yourself that this details a REPLICATION of our earlier test.  Confusingly Fuzzy now denies that he replicated anything at all.  But nor is he prepared to withdraw that paper.  Which is all rather irregular.  In any event.  That paper is of interest as it details the 'second generation' so to speak of this technology.  It was an open source effort - which speaks rather sadly of open source efficacy.  I'll not try THAT again.  I've never got to the bottom of Fuzzy's objections.  All I can tell you as a fact is that the paper claims to be a replication of our earlier published test.  And that claim seemingly is endorsed by Fuzzy in as much has he has not withdrawn it.  In any event.  I'm only referencing this that those of you who are NOT familiar with the history - can check out that alternate method of getting to efficiencies..  In other words, the efficacy is also easily proven on a purely 'switched circuit' without the Q-array of the 'third generation' so to speak - of this circuit.  But it does not result in INFINITE COP.  And nor does it go to the heart of the issue as do our final tests of this.  But it most certainly is still very much a replication.  I believe Harvey Gramm - who was responsible for writing one third of that paper - proposed that the entire paper was written by himself and that the test detailed in  it was actually Fuzzy's 'discovery'.  This largely based on the fact that Fuzzy only managed COP>6 and not COP>17 as we did.  And this because, apparently - our earlier paper had some error in it associated with the resistor details.  Ahhhh.  It's all too tedious to repeat.  And the motives of denial - somewhat embarrassingly transparent.

I'm afraid I've been trying to distance myself from that entire event as it reminded me that involvement of forum members in a replication is NOT to expect the involvement of professionals.  Little did I know.  And this particular effort of mine was heavily tarnished by its lack.  But check out the paper.  It's interesting. 

Thanks for your efforts there eatenbyagrue.  I'll see if I can get this thread on track again. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Three days in moderation for anyone to see the post I just deleted ..... it's not worth my time or expertise now.

Fuzzy

And guys - from where I sit - this seems to indicate that Fuzzy was on 'moderation' until yesterday.  Presumably this was because Fuzzy's inclined to ignore forum guidelines.  Which begs the question.  Which part of which of those last two posts of Fuzzy's comply? 

And the next question is this.  Why is Harti encouraging this level of confrontation?  I wish I knew the answer.  Perhaps, in due course Harti will explain this himself.  I would have thought, on the whole, that any contribution by Fuzzy would, dependably, be somewhat combative - and dependably it would breach any rules of 'decency' at all.  Confusingly Fuzzy is always anxious to advise all and sundry that his 'professionalism' is being called to question.  But its his own posts that prove this lack.  Someone should alert him.  Professionals don't as a rule engage in traducement and slander. 

Anyway.  I think I've now exhausted this complaint.  AGAIN.  I'll try and get back on topic.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Anyway - moving on.

We're likely to be published as we've been called on to do some minor editing of our paper.  And the collaborators have been asked to present CV's.  This is very promising.  But I'm not sure that I can, therefore, publish our own paper here - until that's been finalised.  But what I can do is print out the appendix in that paper - as that is not the 'meat' of the claim.  And it may assist you all in seeing what it is that we're trying to point to.

I'll do it in a series of posts that - hopefully - won't be interrupted with more of those contributions from our trolls. It's likely to take up a whole lot of pages - but I'll try and keep each post reasonably short.

Here's the first download.

  A.  Magnetic Dipole

            It seems that much is known about the conditions required to sustain a fire or flame, while little is actually understood about its material properties. For instance, it is known that fire requires oxygen in the atmosphere for it to burn, but a nuclear fire, such as in the sun, does not require this. The following simplistic and hypothetical experiment is used to explore the property of fire and, by extension, the material property of the magnetic field.

            Place a pile of wood under a ceramic pot holding iron filings. Then set the wood alight. Flames would heat the ceramic pot and this heat would then transfer to the environment inside that pot. With a required sufficiency, the heat would then melt the filings to form a liquid. This experiment would conclude precisely when the fire extinguishes which, in this theorized example, would also be precisely when the filings will have coalesced into a liquid. Then the ceramic pot would cool and the liquid iron solidify, and in the process of solidifying it would also shrink in volume compared to its liquid state.

            Assume also that, at the beginning of that experiment, a detailed account is made of the number and type of atoms and molecules in the wood, in the ceramic pot and in the iron filings. Then at the end of that experiment all those atoms and molecules associated with that energy exchange during the fire, would still be fully accounted for. For instance, some of the carbon atoms in the wood may have combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. Yet other exotic gas molecules may have escaped. The small volumes of moisture in the wood may be vaporized into steam. But the structure and weight of the ceramic pot would remain substantially the same except that it may show evidence of cracking and heat fatigue. The amount of the iron would match its quantity as filings. And the most of the carbon atoms in the wood would be there in the loose ash condition of its burnt out state.