another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and guests,

Here is another boo boo on the video from "dooziedont" on the CUPT demonstration on 12 March 2011 ............. where they had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY  ( http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366 )

This monumental error was from what I remember detected by poynt99, and he may first want to comment on this.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315141/#msg315141    Reply #888 on: March 12, 2012, 06:53:29 AM    ( schematic diagrams )

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty Point.  I KNOW this.  We are all mere mortals.  And hopefully you see how TEDIOUS it is to be constantly reminded of our errors.  At least
my reference to your own 'errorring' does NOT IMPLY A LACK OF INTEGRITY.  LOL  Quite apart from which - it's rather nice.  I'm into individuality
when it comes to expression.  In a big way.  Surely you realise this by now?

Take care there Poynty Point.  You're invaluable to this over unity drive of ours.  Even if you don't realise it.  And I'm rather fond of you - in a
twisted kind of way.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

Let me add this.  I think you have some considerable intellect there Poynty Point - which is sorely lacking in the most of our trolls.  What you lack
is the 'professional touch'.  Do you - any of you - realise how EFFECTIVELY you could have killed off this technology - with the application of a
little constraint?  Fortunately that's NOT going to happen.  Glen keeps posting and TK tries to occupy the moral high ground by trying to knock
the foundations from my own.  You guys are REALLY CLUMSY.  Thank you God.

Rosie 

P.S
What I'm really trying to say is this.  If 'hitting below the belt' doesn't work - shouldn't you 'regroup' and try another tactic?  Like hitting above
the belt?  You all know my weakness.  It's electronics.  SO.  Argue what you know.  Let's indulge the rare event of topical discourse.  That would
be so much more entertaining.  And that way you'll no doubt be able to PROVE whatever it is that you're trying to prove.

Again
Rosie Pose

P.P.S
Because what you're doing at the moment just isn't working.  Surely you see that by now?

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi members and guests,

As per Rosemary's ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont .... ) her admissions ..... for the record in all fairness her disclosure without any disagreement from me on whats quoted.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291932/#msg291932    Reply #1533 on: June 21, 2011, 07:04:38 AM


Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.  And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.

This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

.............

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, here's the thing.

There are a lot of factors that motivate the denial of over unity.  First off is that it simply is not allowed in terms of our standard model.  Then
there's the unarguable evidence of those who have tried to capitalise on claims that were not actually substantiated.  Which is not exactly
ethical.  Then there are those who offer 'slim' evidence or evidence that is intuitively gauged - rather than measured.  And what drives the 'nay
sayers' is anyone's guess.  I very much doubt - in TK's instance - that it's because he's in the pay of vested and competing interests.  His videos
are not exactly 'high definition' professional numbers.  And one would expect him to be able to access better equipment - if he was also being
richly compensated for his efforts.  The same goes for Poynty. 

So.  What drives them?  I can only conclude that it's based on the preferred belief that IF there's any proof of over unity - then it should properly
come from their 'school'.  Those that they can identify with.  People who - at its least - earn a living from applied electrical engineering - or such
like.  But that's not true either.  There are many claimants who not only manage proof but who clearly are NOT qualified in engineering.  And as
often as not their claims are NOT always vociferously challenged.  Itseung is a case in point.  Lasersaber another.  They're tolerated.

I think the distinction is drawn when a claimant has the unhappy combination of being 'unschooled' - and stating unequivocal proof - AND being a
mere female.  Something like that?  Just don't know.  But what I do know is that the attack has been never ending, well orchestrated - and, in
the light of all the hard work that's gone into this nay saying - rather expensive - both in time and output.  Which begs the possibility that there
is some kind of vested interest that keeps their protests coming - which is also rather well funded.  But I don't know.  I can only surmise.

What I do know is this.  We are trying to show you all a means whereby you can access a - heretofore - hidden source of energy.  It's very
simple.  It's in the bound state of  coalesced structures.  What that means is that when you have any bound atomic material - such as in a stone
or a cup or anything at all - then the thing that binds those atoms is where this energy is from.  Assumption has been that these structures are
bonded as a result of the weak interaction between the atoms themselves.  We actually PROVE that it is NOT.  It is something that is OUTSIDE
those atoms.  NOW.  If this is true - which is certainly what our experimental evidence shows - then it also means that we're well able to access
this energy.  It's simply been rather overlooked.  And the real advantage is this.  Any such proposal DOES NOT CONFLICT with the standard
model.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I am driven to try and show this.  And I cannot explain my commitment to this 'drive' other than to assure you that it is not related to
self-promotion.  I freely acknowledge that this is NOT mine nor any of my collaborators' discovery.  It is just something that has been 'passed
over' as a result of two things.  The one is that research funding is usually from vested interests.  There would be no single beneficiary to this
finding therefore there would be very little funding and therefore very little interest.  And the other reason is the result of assumptions related to
the way material is bonded.  I would much prefer it that you understood the implications of this than the applications.  I'm not an
experimentalist.  If anything - I'm an amateur theorist.  BUT.  In the face of the evidence - then I think the value in its applications should and
would be better progressed if this thesis was also better understood.

Which brings me back to the problem of our trolls.  Until they desist with this rather absurd indulgence in character assassination - then the
understanding of the model - or the application of that model - will be continually subject to evaluation on grounds that are less than scientific.
Fortunately the time has now long passed where readers are persuaded by the 'bias' of a poster.  We're all of us somewhat more discerning.
And the force of 'protest' which is applied against me has now reached a dimension that is utterly void of any kind of  moderation or good
sense.  It shows a want of professionalism and with it a want of good judgement.  And general discernment is far more sophisticated than it was
in the days when TK was thought of as latter day Che Guevara championing the cause of the utterly naive.  His methods of address - and those of
Poynty - and those of all the 'trolls' who post here - are now seen for what they are.  Gratuitous and excessive. 

This is my appeal to them to 'clean up their act' even if it's just in the interests of generating some much needed credibility.  I LONG for some
decent exploration of the anomalies that we've shown.  And I LONG for some understanding of the insights that we're proving.  Anything - rather
than this tedious need for me to address their rather fatuous attentions.  It's too easy to show them up for what they're doing.  And the entire
exercise is beginning to bore me to tears.  Just how many ways must I expose their somewhat infantile - and somewhat less than appropriate -
and somewhat less than ethical methodologies.  Trolling needs to be revised if it's EVER going to be effective again.  Really we need to elevate
the tone here.  I think they should try and be a little more adult. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary