another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Flux It]

Flux It - Mags was pointing to the claim by TK, Poynty and Fuzzy that there are only 3 readers here.  He was simply trying to show that this is nonsense.  He, like you and me and most of us here - are rather tired of this sad little observation.  Like all their contributions they have more to do with innuendo and propaganda than with fact.

But Magsy's very much on track.  I assure you.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Was not so much speaking directly to Mags as I was making a point in general. All these pages of something besides the topic, and it just goes in circles. Sorry if I offended the wrong person 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Was not so much speaking directly to Mags as I was making a point in general. All these pages of something besides the topic, and it just goes in circles. Sorry if I offended the wrong person 

LOL  I'm sure that no-one's offended.  And your points are valid - to a fault.  If ONLY we could keep the thread on topic.  But the benefit - as ever - is that you're hopefully now all seeing how it is that we've been unable to progress this technology on these forums.  I'm of the opinion that to post any significant advancement of technologies on open source - is likely to mitigate against its advancement.  If it's a valid claim it's accompanied by an orchestrated troll attack.  If it's vague or not fully proved - it's tolerated.  Most of us have our own agendas - and if it's for a sincere evaluation of some test results - then our trolls make an easy meal of it.  And - as you see - they dominate the thread contributions.

Ho Hum.  What I do hope that this thread is managing is to point out who the trolls are and the techniques they use.  That may, eventually, help someone.

Kindest regards Flux It.  We may all have a minority voice here - but I assure you - there's a broadening interest in this from our readers.  I know this for a fact.  So.  We're winning.  But in 'baby steps'.  And I'm more than ready to see this to its conclusion.  I think this is the first time on any of my threads that I've managed to outlast the trolls.  And that's only because Harti's tolerated what he actually seems to find intolerable - related to our claim.

God knows.  It's all very difficult.  LOL
Rosie

[evolvingape]

 It appears that the involvement of so many highly skilled and knowledgeable people who reject Rosemary's claim of having achieved overunity and a COP = infinity result, is now being accepted as proof that those same people are attempting to suppress a significant technology. This leaves me not only speechless, but without option.


From this point on I will not waste a single second of my time on Rosemary Ainslie or her fraudulent claims regarding overunity energy generation. I wish it to be noted that the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide said proof in support of any claims made, this has not been forthcoming at a level of quality compliant with the scientific method or independent reproducibility, but has actually been deliberately avoided at all costs by the RATS, hence the caveats on providing said proof. The game cannot continue if the proof is presented!


So all you “believers” have my blessing to attempt to replicate the RATS results, go on try it. Invest your time and money into this project, your knowledge and expertise, and you will get out exactly what you put in. I am confident in stating this.


Before you dive headlong into this “technology” have a read through these links and then objectively assess how this information is relevant or not, to Rosemary Ainslie, her circuit and her claims, so that you can make an informed decision.


When every single one of you who invests in this, years down the line, breaks down and starts crying in frustration, go crying to Rosemary, not me or any of the others who have tried to help you understand what has gone on. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof


Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences (see qualitative research and intersubjectivity). Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence


Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility


Reproducibility is the degree of agreement between measurements or observations conducted on replicate specimens in different locations by different people. Reproducibility is part of the precision of a test method.[1]
Reproducibility also refers to the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, or by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure. The basic idea can be seen in Aristotle's dictum that there is no scientific knowledge of the individual, where the word used for individual in Greek had the connotation of the idiosyncratic, or wholly isolated occurrence. Thus all knowledge, all science, necessarily involves the formation of general concepts and the invocation of their corresponding symbols in language


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction#Retraction_in_science



Retraction


In science, a retraction of a published scientific article indicates that the original article should not have been published and that its data and conclusions should not be used as part of the foundation for future research. The common reasons for the retraction of articles are scientific misconduct including plagiarism, serious errors, and duplicate/concurrent publishing (self-plagiarism). The retraction may be initiated by the editors of the journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). A lesser withdrawal of content than a full retraction may be labelled a correction.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience


Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters


Good luck to all you believer's... I hope you find what you are looking for.



RM

[Flux It]

I agree completely Ape- the point I am making is the constant bashing that goes on as if some people have nothing better to do.

Then after all this time someone says "I built this circuit and surprisingly it oscillates", not even speaking about OU claims just the fact that it in deeds runs when it was not supposed to at all. Maybe someone came up with another variation while experimenting and it did something else too. Maybe someone could use part of the circuit in designing something else and wow that works great!

I keep up on reading the mueller replication thread, and it is very commendable by the people involved and the experimenting they are doing. Always trying something new, improving on things that may never amount to anything. But they are trying and I see no bashing going on, only people working together not against each other.

It does not take much to add a timer or whatever to isolate the circuit, and maybe other modifications also. I would like too see Rosemary propose their way of doing this, as this is what was claimed to work. With this being open source I dont see where that all of the sudden that portion becomes proprietary to a colleague or assistant.

There are plenty that have made their point that this will never work period, but to keep jumping in slinging insults over and over is getting really old.

As I said before I am not taking any sides, just trying to remain objective and provide helpful input if I can. If a person cannot do that then it is as simple as not reading this thread, let alone posting in it. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Flux It, when I read posts like these last two - then I also know how effective is this 'misinformation' campaign.

.  We've got a technology that - on the face of it - is able to take water to boil
.  There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
.  Neither in terms of measured wattage
.  Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
.  This circuit is able to generate a really robust self-sustaining oscillation
.  Even in settings where the circuit is OPEN and the batteries effectively disconnected.
.  Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
.  Not only that but we've organised a public demonstration of this
.  Every single academic electrical engineer from every single university in South Africa was invited
.  And NOT ONE EXPERT ATTENDED.
.  Not only this but we've open sourced every single aspect of this circuit
.  It's detailed in PESWIKI - this forum and my own blogspot thereby preventing any 'ownership' of this technolgy.
.  Not only this - but this extraordinary result was predicted in terms of a thesis that was published by me some many years ago.
.  Not only this but the circuit is really simple to replicate.
.  And not only this but the circuit is even simpler to simulate.
.  Not only this but I'm more than happy to prove this on a live internet demonstration