another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Chet,

If, as you claim - you did not provide that link - then - indeed - I, and one or two members who alerted me to it - must be entirely deluded.  Frankly I'm inclined to believe that you may have 'inadvertently' posted it.  Either way - it did not 'stop the world from spinning'.  And I was mildly amused at best because that - like so many other representations about me are absurd and rather comical.  You probably have seen them on that 'hate blog' dedicated to me.  But don't let that monopolise your attention.  More relevant to the issue are those many other points that I raised.  I wonder if I can impose on you to comment

It is a fact that we have proved that electric current has a dual charge potential.  It is a fact that we have measured infinite COP.  It is a fact that we have taken water to boil at NO MEASURED COST OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY.  It is a fact that these results were required and predicted in terms of a magnetic field model.  It is a fact, therefore, that we qualify for Poynty's over unity prize.  And it is also a FACT that Poynty has NOT  responded to our challenge for his prize.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps you can enlighten us.  You're knee deep in there.

It is also a FACT that ALL these forums are very carefully NOT talking about Rossi's technology which, frankly outperforms ALL our claims.  Again.  I wonder why that is?

Do advise us.  You really need to - if we're to engage in all this apparent enthusiasm for over unity results.  It would be very sad to learn that you never reference our own work because Poynty and Harvey have advised you all that it doesn't work. 

Regards
Rosemary

And about that 'cept' thing.  I mistakenly thought you were signing your letter.  Forgive me.  I'm that old that I'm entirely unschooled in internet 'speak'.  I take it that your name is Chet?  is that right?  It's difficult to work it out - the more so as none of you expose your ACTUAL identities.  More's the pity.  it makes me think that I'm engaging with 'talking heads'.  Very confusing.

[fuzzytomcat]

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

Fuzzy

[CuriousChris]

Hi Rosemary

About your gauntlet statement.

I have often considered offering a small prize to help someone continue their research into OU. $10K I know its not much but all I could afford. but that's not the point of my reply. my point is I would not accept a gauntlet thrown down such as yours.

Unless I could independently replicate the process that resulted in OU in a pristine environment where I control or at least am sure no one else controls all the variables, I simply would not do it. So perhaps you could look at changing the location to one that is independent. you are more likely to get a (better) response.

CC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosemary

About your gauntlet statement.

I have often considered offering a small prize to help someone continue their research into OU. $10K I know its not much but all I could afford. but that's not the point of my reply. my point is I would not accept a gauntlet thrown down such as yours.

Unless I could independently replicate the process that resulted in OU in a pristine environment where I control or at least am sure no one else controls all the variables, I simply would not do it. So perhaps you could look at changing the location to one that is independent. you are more likely to get a (better) response.

CC

Dear Curious Chris,

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing anyone at all from replicating our circuit.  The specs are well defined and - subject to an ability to access some reasonably proficient measuring apparatus - it is all very doable.

The 'gauntlet' is to remind our readers that our claim has been DENIED without any attempts at replication - other than Poynty's own early efforts on his simulation program.  He then departed into a spurious set of further tests in an attempt to deny those very results.  But even that was too late.  The replications on simulated software have now been widely tested.

The point is this.  We have results that should be added to the general pool of evidence that over unity results are not some rather fanciful concepts from some equally fanciful promoters - as is suggested.  They are all real.  Right up to and including the work done on this forum.  But they're also widely dismissed.  And that is courtesy the tireless efforts of those 'nay sayers'.  I am simply proposing that IF indeed, they want proof of over unity - then put foot and pull finger.  Because we've done this.  Rossi has done this.  But so have SO MANY OTHERS.  They ALL die a natural death on these forums.  And when these dedicated 'discreditors' can't attack the technology they resort to attacking the character.  Their motives are transparently obvious.  I have ample proof of this.

There is absolutely NO way I would send our apparatus to Poynty or to Steve.  Poynty I know is NOT intellectually honest.  And Steve is on record as attacking Rossi's technology on the basis of the man's character - and in the face of wide expert accreditation.  Therefore we would need to protect the technology against any spurious accreditation that may, as it seems to, carry an agenda.  The ONLY way this could be protected is to ensure that they do NOT tamper with the evidence.  So.  We establish the required measurement protocols.  We establish the required parameters for proof.  And then we show this in a demonstration where there is no way that they can 'fudge' the results. 

Your point is valid.  It needs independent accreditation.  But that accreditation needs must be impartial.  And this is absolutely NOT evident from Poynty.  Nor for that matter - from Steven E Jones.  But in as much has Steve has indicated an interest in replicating - I may yet need to retract this opinion.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

If you yourself - want to do a replication then email me at ainslie@mweb.co.za.  I will forward you those papers.  Nor do any of us want that prize money that may or may not be on offer by you.  We're only challenging Poynty et al on that basis because it gives us the contractual  'right' to engage.  And I'm not sure that Poynty can refuse that engagement on any moral ground at all.  That he does not like me also does not cut it. 

[poynt99]

My my you've been a busy little beaver Rosemary. So busy in fact that evidently you've forgotten to take your condiments.

Relax and get a grip on reality Rosemary.

When you can demonstrate proper measurement protocol and measurement interpretation, AND still produce an OU result, THEN I will consider your application for the prize. I am most certain Stefan would be in agreement.

Failing that, your measurements and erroneous conclusions were and remain seriously flawed.

I would strongly suggest you refrain from attacking the professor, Chet, and myself, and put that time to better use by brushing up on power measurement 101.

.99