another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Powercat, thank you for clearing that up and pointing out another of Rosemary's lies.

Fortunately our own claim was actually and openly accredited by
SASOL (SA), ABB Research (NC - USA) BP (SA), Power Engineers (SA) (part of the Alstom Group), SPESCOM (SA) and many, many more smaller
firms.  Those listed are also listed on our Stock Exchange.  They gave us their permission - in writing - to append their names as accreditors.
And SASOL went further and offered Professor Gaunt at UCT - a bursary award - to take this study further.  Unfortunately Professor Gaunt
'declined' that offer. 

None of these companies have ever heard of you, Rosemary, and you have never shown any documentation of this claimed "accreditation". Let's see this document -- in writing-- allowing you to use the names of any of these companies as "accreditors". Several years ago, several of these companies were contacted and asked about you... and nobody remembers you or your device or any endorsement or "accreditation".

Let's see the documents, Rosemary. PROVE YOUR CLAIMS of accreditation by showing the reports and documents. You've made these claims before... but you've NEVER provided a trace of documentation of them.

And why don't you mention your much more recent contacts with Professor Kahn, and your work in the broom closet at CPUT? At least Kahn remembers you.

And when did a University Professor ever turn down an offer of a grant?

Now... as to my replication. I still claim AND ON THE SAME QUALITY OF EVIDENCE AS ROSEMARY that my circuit, running overnight now, for over 10 hours.... has, according to my calculations, exceeded the battery capacity by a large amount, and is still running.

If Rosemary can base her claim on false math and improper experimentation and reporting (note how the description has changed over the past week)..... THEN SO CAN I.

Oh, by the way.... My circuit has been checked and accredited by WDP, the University of Austin at Bear Creek, and Professor Doctor von Quatlu at the Institute for Proper Study. Unfortunately their endorsements are buried under a pile of crap, and you can't expect an old feeble man like me actually to produce them for verification, can you.

[TinselKoala]

I'd still like to know what the objection is to MY proposed test. Since Rosemary doesn't understand why liquid immersion is important... and we know how creatively she calculates (another example has just been posted) and measures things.... a test that needs NO calculation or measurement would seem to be less contentious.

Take six identical batteries and charge them all up using an automatic charger. Randomly select three and set them aside. Take the other three and hook it up to Rosemary's circuit, and let it heat a resistor to 260 degrees or boil water/antifreeze, or run a vibrator, I don't care, as long as Rosemary can say that "it's working properly". Let it run for a day or two like that, undisturbed. Then take that battery set which has been running the circuit for a couple of days and just hook it up to a simple  light bulb load -- like 3  12-v automotive brake light bulbs in series. Do the same with the three charged batteries that were set aside. Watch and see which light bulbs dim first. Record on time-lapse video for the world to see. Repeat the test three times just to be sure, recharging and then randomly selecting three batteries to set aside and three to run, each time.

This test will take longer than MileHigh's excellent capacitor test, but at least ALL the participants should be able to UNDERSTAND what is happening and the meaning of it, unlike the cap test.
And it will not provide as much scientific data as .99's test.... but again, my proposed test is unambiguous and requires no measurement other than the most basic kind. Which bulb is still glowing, which one went dark first.

What is wrong with my proposed test? ... which, IIRC, was actually first proposed by Rosemary's former collaborator Harvey.

Oh... and of course it can't be hooked DIRECTLY to a FG. I suggest using a simple series capacitor... which will still allow the FG's signal to pass unimpeded and switch the mosfets but will NOT allow the DC path, or the FG, to charge the batteries. There are also other ways to stop the FG from being able to charge the batteries but this is the simplest. The circuit can also be examined WITH and WITHOUT a series cap in the FG circuit, to see the contribution (if any) of the FG to the charging.

Even better would be if she used the 555 timer circuit that was so important and critical in her first, COP> 17 circuit claim. I mean, after all.... we KNOW that one works properly.... don't we. In fact, ANY of the early collaborator's 555 timer circuits could be used, even the ones that fixed her original inverted duty cycle.

This test is SO SIMPLE that ANYONE with batteries, mosfets, resistors, and light bulbs can perform it, and as ALWAYS, I encourage anyone with doubts to TEST FOR YOURSELVES.

Don't take my word for anything. Do your own math, check it twice, justify it with references, draw your own conclusions.

How's that for a rabid debunker's attempt at suppression of a new important techology?
Shouldn't a paid suppressor be saying "NO, it's all a waste of time, you CAN'T properly test this circuit because you don't know what you're doing and it's impossible anyway. Shut Rosemary UP, Ban Her, pay no attention to her at all. Don't buy any mosfets, especially not the IRFPG50 (or the 2sk1548, especially) because it's a waste of money. Just go back to your always-proven-to-work Steorn motors and your Rossi reactors, because Rosemary's circuit cannot possibly work".

But I'm not really saying that, am I?

I'm saying to Rosemary: Prove your assertions with correct calculations and chain of reasoning. Demonstrate your claims by building and testing your device in public by an actual TEST, not some hand-waving demonstration. Other builders should also BUILD AND TEST for themselves to confirm what is learned from the public displays. And Rosemary should stop lying about what other people say or do or think.

Meanwhile, I fully endorse the tests suggested by MileHigh and .99--- as long as they can agree to Rosemary's conditions, that is.

"Kill two birds with one stone", eh, Rosemary? Why not kill three or four while you're at it... I'm not the only "bird" objecting to your nonsense.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello powercat

Let me see if I can clarify this - as you seem to be having some difficulties.  Your original statement is here.

For the three readers and anyone else, this is a classic statement from Rosemary where  she twists the truth, what I have said in the past and it is on record,is that no one on this forum has ever successfully replicated Rosemary's claim, (that's right the claim);

From where I sit you're unequivocally stating that no-one has replicated our claim?  Is that right?  Well.  Here's the puzzle.  Glen Lettenmaier has published our paper on his scribd account where he categorically states that he has replicated our claim.  Here's the link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems  And here's a direct transcript from that paper.

The opening paragraph stipulates that ...
The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonating
frequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Results
indicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an
alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...
The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest)
published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical
magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the
experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate
the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was
considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating
to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.

From where I sit that represents an unequivocal endorsement by Glen Lettenmaier himself.  Unless he's misrepresenting the facts.  I no longer know what his stance is on this.  But if he now denies that he replicated then common decency requires that he withdraw that Scribd publication. Perhaps you can clarify your or his position on this.  I don't think you can accuse me of misrepresenting the facts.  I'm representing nothing.  This is Glen Lettenmaier's representation of the facts.  Nothing whatsoever to do with me.  Therefore I think it's a bit harsh to accuse me of twisting the facts.  These are the facts.

Regards,
Rosie Pose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now.  Let's see if I can deal with this post of yours.  They're coming fast and furious. 

You can't help twisting what  people say or how they say it , I note that you did not include a link to my post where I said this.

Not sure who's twisting here powercat.  I don't think it's me. What's throwing you is that the evidence is there.  Glen claims to have replicated.  It's there in that paper. It not only carries his name as a collaborator - but it's published on his own Scribd account.

You keep going on about Glenn and his replication, how long ago was this now?

Not sure that it's me that goes on about this.  I only use this to refute your own and TK's repeated claims that there has never been a replication.  Which actually means that I reference this possibly as often as you lot deny this.  I think that's fair?  Surely?  Or would you prefer it that I let well enough alone and allow you all to misrepresent this?  Just let all our trolls repeatedly advise all our readers that there never has been a replication?  I'm not sure that would be in the best interests of our technology or of over unity.  And nor do I know if it matters if this happened one year ago or ten.  It happened.  It's a part of history.  And it takes more skills than you and TK can bring to the table to rewrite history.

In all those years Glenn is the only one that (you say) matched your claim of excess energy,

Not actually.  You should do an internet search.  I think there are as many that claim a replication of that waveform as those that don't.  The only one who patently could not get that oscillation is our TK.  But he denies this.  It's just he never showed us an example of it.  Perhaps he'll oblige us - one day.

he (GLEN) completely denies it,

Glen does NOT deny it.  Again.  Refer to the scribd publication link above.

yet you try and hold him up as a shining example of your work,
after all this time you have no one else?

Not at all.  The minute Glen withdraws his scribd publication then I'll again claim ownership of that paper.  Then I'll go on record as having a full on replication of our earlier test.  Then if Glen objects - he can sue me.  He knows how to reach me.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You are now beginning to infer that I support your claim in some way,

Not at all.  I'm entirely satisfied that you have NEVER supported our evidence let alone the replication.  Golly.

I do not support your claim the evidence is overwhelming for many years that you do not have any excess energy.

on a purely personal level - I'd be rather sorry if you ever did support our evidence.  It would diminish it somehow - in a way that's rather difficult to explain.  And as for this

Your persistence to carry on claiming you do is damaging this community, there are many good threads on here where people work together to develop new ideas and try to work towards a free energy device that can be replicated by most people, the large majority of them do not make ridiculous claims that can't be replicated.

I'm afraid that I am not responsible for the contentions that are evoked by our claim.  I believe it's our trolls who are responsible.  I suppose it's the truth that if we withdrew our claim then there would be no further contentions.  But we'd need to then ignore experimental evidence and that's not consistent with good science.

This forum is here to discover the truth about free energy and not support people that lie and hide from the facts.

Which is difficult to understand.  I believe we have some rather telling evidence in support of over unity.  Even if you, personally, discount our latest tests - you've still got Glen's replication.  That surely counts for something?

Regards,
Rosie Posie