another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

And guys, just as a reminder.

TK has been very careful to NOT reference our actual claim as detailed in our papers that Poynty made available to us all.  Instead he must have done some extensive search to find any evidence of that film on our demonstration - and then made THAT the theme of his so called 'debunk' - where - to date he as STILL not shown us his results. 

Our claim is wholly and entirely associated with our paper and NOTHING ELSE.  And when and if TK engages on a discussion of that and on the replication of those tests - then INDEED he may be able to assert that he's replicated anything at all.  He is on record here as dismissing our papers as a 'word salad' - which contradicts the rather meritorious assessment from more than one highly esteemed academic who commended it for it's clarity.  Perhaps TK prefers it that we present our proof with the entire want of clarity associated with his so called 'debunk' where he has not even given us a comprehensive report of any kind but rather a mishmash of badly filmed nonsense that imply and infer and suggest - all.  Which is in defiance of good science and good experimental practice. Hardly a 'standard' to be emulated.

So.  Go figger.  Why did he need to rustle through the internet to find any extant evidence of that video?  When the papers that describe our claim are so freely available?  One does not need Einstein's intellect to work that one out.

Regards again,
Rosemary

Rosemary .....

Please see your own very own posting .....

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271            Reply #124 on: March 18, 2011, 10:56:29 AM

And see the device image you downloaded ..... "WITH A SINGLE MOSFET "NOT" FIVE (5)" as shown in your YouTube video dated 12 MARCH 2011 for the COP>INFINITY demonstration.


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/     ( th_DSC00173-1.jpg )


Therefore SCOPE SHOTS and DATA DUMPS for your papers used for possible publishing in a accredited journal or magazine have mixed up device schematics ie: device schematic - one (1) mosfet, Q1 x5 (five) mosfets, Q1/ Q2-Q4 (five) mosfets .....

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus    ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )

Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #4    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #5    dated 02/09/11    500us    49.5v    (4 battery)
Fig #8    dated 02/16/11    500us    74.1v    (6 battery)

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure   ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )

Fig #2    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    1us    73.3v    (6 battery)
Fig #8    dated 03/02/11    2us    62.9v    (5 battery)


Everything is mixed up in your papers, the complete compiled data for each paper ( device schematic ) isn't any good. CHECK ALL THE DATES !! 


FTC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys,

Just take a good long look at this schematic.  You'll notice that it's been very well presented.  It takes some amount of work to manage this.  And then notice too that it is NOT our own schematic.  I assure you all that there is no part of this that has any reference whatsoever to our own NERD schematic in our paper.

So I ask you?  What actually motivates so much hard work - to misrepresent our circuit?  I put it to you that our claim is likely to threaten the established order of things with much more force than our energy suppliers require.  And unlike cold fusion - we have the thesis that supports our evidence.  That is the point at which our results represent a real danger to them.

Regards again
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary .....

Please see your own very own posting .....

My dear Glen Lettenmaier
It seems that you are fixated on this and still struggling with those intellectual constraints of yours.  I'll try and keep my language simple.  Then you'll be able to understand.  I hope.  Our first generation circuit produced COP>17.  Your replication of this produced COP>6. Our early intention in the references you make was to replicate our own COP>17.  Which we did.  Then we decided to test this on higher wattage outputs.  Therefore we intended to parallel our MOSFET's (not mosfets you note TK?).  I personally and wholly and completely misapplied that paralleling and through God's good Grace, found an entirely new waveform that resulted in COP Infinity.

I am sure that you would prefer it that we did not.  Because then you would be able to argue your 'discovery' more convincingly.  But there you go.  Experiments change - discoveries move on - life takes over - and behind it all will the forgotten efforts of yours to take ownership of this circuit.  Just live with it.

But while I may have your attention.  Where are those interdicts applied by your team of attorneys - as they work towards that class action that you promised us?

Rosie Pose

ADDED
And may I impose on you when you answer - to simply apply some full sentences in a verbal explanation.  Your reliance on 'links' is getting tedious and your need to fill the page with these sad protests - is somewhat transparent.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think the "guys" are pretty much a figment of your imagination at this point in time Rosemary.  Seriously, it's become like one of those "world's thinnest books" jokes.

Anyone that is reasonably astute in electronics and has had some time to quality your circuit and you yourself in terms of your level of electronics knowledge and personality idiosyncrasies recognizes this for the ongoing farce it has been for a long time.

TK on the payroll to prevent your circuit from "going public?"  That merits a LOL.  There are 93,000 reads of this thread alone.  Such bondage!  If you only understood how you would be received outside the forum bubble Rosemary.  You claim academics have endorsed your paper?  You have to be either kidding or deluded or they were referred to you by Sterling Allen.

Hello MileHigh

I assure you that we have a level of support that is both surprising and welcome.  The only joke is the transparent efforts by you and TK to detract from this technology.  And my personal knowledge is more than sufficient for the purposes of explaining every aspect of this rather simple circuit which is detailed in the second part of our two part paper.  Your skills - unhappily - are not equal to this apparently.  As you have NOT been able to explain that positive half of each waveform during the period that the battery is disconnected.

Kindest regards MileHigh - you've need of it.

Rosie Posie

[TinselKoala]

@ Fuzzy.... now would be a great time to post your email from Professor Kahn, the academic who allowed Rosemary some broomcloset space for her experimentation. He has some interesting things to say about her and Donovan Martin, IIRC.

Better be careful, though.... Rosemary is cornered and she will strike out and claw and spit like a wild animal. It's already starting. Even when she finally ADMITS about the video, the scope shots, all of that stuff that she lied and argued about for days..... even when her face is rubbed directly in the proof of her lies, she will still manage to turn and twist it. You see... it is OUR fault that that video exists and was used as information.  SHE never tried to cover anything up or silence any discussion, did she now.


@ MileHigh... the reason she's balking at the circuit now is that 1) it explicitly includes that gate capacitance, and she has no clue about capacitors or capacitance, she probably thinks you mean an extra component or something,  and 2) that's the circuit I BUILT and that's the circuit DEMONSTRATED in the video, and she knows that there are problems with the video and the performance. I could tell her the sky is blue and overhead, and she'd claim it was green and underfoot, just because I said it.

But there's another important issue that I identified: what about that 48-volt battery pack for the second part of the Demo Video that Rosemary posted? Why was one 12-volt battery pulled out of the stack for that part of the demo? And a related question: What is the absolute maximum drain current of a single IRFPG50 power HEXfet metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor?

She's not going to test, friends. We have known that from the beginning. My presence or absence has nothing to do with the matter. You can see her wiggling around and making impossible conditions from the very beginning, well before I arrived here. Just watch....

And another thing she's not going to do: she won't say just how Tar Baby is different from her device. And of course, the corollary to that is that she will continue lying about me and my work. Have I presented results? Of course I have, nearly fifteen pages of results and discussion of them, along with 20 or so YT videos including the DIM BULB TEST. So how is she able to claim that I haven't? It is because she is wilfully ignorant, arrogant, and NEVER INTENDS TO TEST her batteries at all, so she wants to divert attention from HER AND HER CIRCUIT to anything else.

TEST YOUR BATTERIES, Ainslie. Or just continue lying and bloviating, I don't really care. The video lies and the scopeshot lies were enough for me; that little episode shows your true colors completely. You are a fraud.  Now you are lying about "academics" praising your "paper". Let's see a statement from one, supporting that claim. Where is Donovan Martin, even?
Your "papers" wouldn't pass muster at a tenth-grade science fair. You simply do not know how to report experimental results, and you actually insult your audience by asking them seriously to consider your claims based on those papers.

How many of my statements about Ainslie and her circuit and demo and scope shots have been utterly borne out? The energy calculation BS... that took WEEKS before she finally admitted she was wrong and I was right, and she STILL hasn't retracted the bogus conclusion based on the bad math. Skipping over many...we come to the VIDEO. After so many firm denials and shouts and more lies, she finally is FORCED to admit and acknowledge that the video is hers, it is official, and she posted it. The SCOPESHOTS that I published and analyzed and that she so blatantly lied about... until once again her nose was rubbed in the incontrovertible proof that I was right and she was wrong. And it goes on and on. Examine every one of the claims she's made about me and TarBaby testing and you, dear reader, will see that I am right and she is wrong. She has been unable to refute me with facts and references A SINGLE TIME.