another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Come on, she obviously meant that a watt is a joule per second.  With all you guys bashing her all the time, it is an understandable mistake, as it is stressful to try to defend one's work against people who just want to bash it.


Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it?  Just let her experiment in peace.  I get it, you do not like her invention.  I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure.  But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.

It should be clear to you by now that it was not an "understandable mistake", it is actually her sincere belief that a Joule = one Watt per second... since that's how she calculates. She continually makes these "mistakes" and bases her claims on them.

And as for  the invention and schematics being "out there"..... have you done your homework? Do you know the history of fuzzytomcat, .99, and me, with regards to Rosemary's "invention" and "schematics"? I suggest you do a little research on our history with this topic. You can start by looking at my YouTube channel and searching for the obvious terms.

And please.... build her circuits and test them for yourself. How's that for an attempt at suppression? BUILD AND TEST THEM YOURSELF.

You answered my power and energy problem correctly.... that's a good start.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys here's a little detective story for you all.

Chapter 1. 
I repeatedly assure everyone in post after post - that I'm more than willing to engage in a battery draw down test.  But not unless there's explicit acknowledgement that those results will then constitute PROOF.  The only way to get this is to engage the active jurisdiction of some experts.  And by expert - Glen - I mean - by EXPERTS.

That challenge is duly rewarded by Glen Lettenmaier and others flaming my thread to death.  That thread is then locked and I'm banned.  Worst still - Harti threatens to DELETE my hard work.  I protest.  He agrees to leave the thread in tact.  But I'm still banned.

Chapter 2.
THEN.  I'm re-instated.  I'm allowed to start a new thread related to new work.  But circumstances over take us all.  Rossi has developed his E-cat.  I'm obliged to concede that this is more 'to the point' than our own technology - as his is immediately applicable at heavy duty wattage.   I do the decent thing - admit to this cold fusion priority - and let my own thread lapse.

Then I see a familiar pattern in the 'sledging' or 'trolling' of yet more claimants - on Poynty's forum.  I am now more than an little angered - as they're using the same ploys that they used against me.  Ramset is running around trying to rally TK of all people to adjudicate in a poor Serbian Professor's claim to having achieved over unity.  I realise that I have a MISSION.  I need to alert all the readers here to the AGENDAs that follow every unequivocal claim to over unity.  I decide the best way to do this is to challenge Poynty and Professor AND INDEED HARTI - to their prizes for proof of over unity.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Chapter 3
With this purpose in mind I re-open my thread.  In the fullness of time Magsy proposes a battery draw down test.  I reference the fact that I'm more than happy to engage in this.  Ponty states - wtf?  I'm paraphrasing here.  He asks - Why didn't you propose this before?  I said I DID.  I told you that -  in post after post.   I'm on record.  More than willing to engage in a battery draw down test.  But not unless there's explicit acknowledgement that those results will then constitute PROOF.  The only way to get this is to engage the active jurisdiction of some experts.  And - again.  By expert - Glen - I mean - by EXPERTS.

Poynty still alleges that that I've never ever, ever proposed this before.  I dip into my posts and find the first reference.  There it is.  Unequivocal proof that I HAVE.  BUT.  That post, - unfortunately - references a math error that has been addressed in that previously LOCKED THREAD. The fact is that there's also this proof of accepting a battery draw down challenge.  Which belies Poynty's claim that I've NEVER BEFORE PROPOSED THIS.  It's ignored.  LOL. The only thing that everyone shouts about is that I've made a math error.  TK leads the attack.  I immediately answer him.  I  point out in an immediate follow up post that it was INDEED an error.  Freely acknowledged.  THEN AGAIN.  My thread is locked.  I'm left floundering.  And I can do nothing to assert my challenge for Poynty's prizes. 

Chapter 4.
THEN.  Time passes.  Posts are posted.  Pages are turned.  But in the background strange things are afoot. Harti allows me my voice again.  I can post on my own thread. 

Meanwhile that all important admission of error - that thing that is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than any proof that I've been trying to engage in a battery draw down test since forever.  That apparent lack of an admission of error becomes the FULL FOCUS FOR TK. And  TK's NOTHING if not an opportunist.  He CHARGES IN.  Post after post after post challenging me to EXPLAIN AN ERROR THAT CONSTITUTED MENDACITY FRAUD - INABILITY TO ADMIT TO ERROR - FINAL PROOF THAT WE HAVE NO CLAIM. NAME IT.  It was all there.   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Chapter 5
I - being somewhat more trusting than is actually appropriate - assume that TK is - like all of you are - aware of my early admission of error. Then TK - who is well aware of the fact that the admission - goes on a veritable rampage of DEMAND.  Admit you're wrong Rosemary. And with it admit that your claims are fallacious.  And with it admit that you really need to WITHDRAW ANY CLAIM TO HAVING ACHIEVED OVER UNITY.  He goes further.  he then advises HARTI in an OPEN LETTER - that HARTI MUST NOW DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

And all this time I assume that he's doing this in the face of the evidence.  My open admission was freely available for all to read.  Posted twice. BUT. If I didn't know that TK was the soul of discretion and that Harti was actively advancing OU - I would be inclined to suspect that they were both going to use this as another rather thin excuse to get me banned.  But for the record.  My admission of error was made BEFORE the thread was locked that last time.  Happily there still remains, nonetheless, evidence of this prior admission.

Which all goes to show how tenuous is tenure on these forums.  And how easy it is for our trolls to exploit every opportunity to discredit me or the technology - with or without due cause.  When they can do that much background editing then I concerned for the integrity of open source. With respect.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now TK - can impose on you.  Explain all these pages of noisy alarm.  Here's your statement.

An open letter to Stefan Hartmann:

Stefan: I have repeatedly shown how Rosemary Ainslie's claim is based on incorrect math and incorrect understanding of power and energy units and their relationships. I have cited her own words and shown specifically where and how her calculations have been done incorrectly. The correct calculations, based on her own data, show that the claim that she makes is FALSE. I have asked her to either justify her calculations and show that she is correct and I am wrong, or to correct her calculations and RETRACT her claim of overunity performance and her application for the various prizes that you and Prof. Jones are offering.

The fact that she refuses to do either of these things, yet allows the claim to stand uncorrected in spite of the manifest fatal errors, shows that she is engaging in wilful scientific misconduct. The fact that you are allowing this claim to stand, unchallenged and uncorrected, indicates a certain lack of rigor on your own part. I believe that you have sufficient understanding of mathematics and energy/power calculations to see for yourself, by reading carefully and performing your own calculations, that her claim is unsupported by her data. I sincerely hope that you consider the effect on the FE community that results from allowing FALSE CLAIMS to stand without correction.
Regards--
TinselKoala

When I have answered you HERE.

Dear TK,

There comes a time in the life of a forum where the 'trolls' are identified by their insistence on repeating the same complaint over and over and over.  Your own contributions as a dedicated 'disclaimer' of all things clean and green - are well known.  Also apparent is your insistence on repeating the same complaint - time out of mind - with the clear intention of 'flaming' this thread to DEATH.  Let me remind you.  Here's the ANSWER - WRITTEN IN FULL and explained in AS MUCH DETAIL AS IT DESERVES.  I'll propose some other subjects that may be of interest to our readers and to you - hereafter.

Meanwhile, I trust that it's understood that your entire objective here is to DISCREDIT our technology, and any claims associated with this technology based on something that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO OUR PAPER WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE CLAIM associated with this.  While I understand how you RELY on this - may I also IMPOSE on you to read my answer.  That way - when you do decide to 'flame' this thread - you'll at least use some appropriate excuses to do so.

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

and here

Lol. I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

All that fuss?  Are you really needing to scrape so far down that barrel? I'd post the whole of that answer but it's only appropriate to Poynty Point. I'll save the full answer for my blogspot - lest the post be deleted. LOL
Kindest regards TK
Rosie