Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Not really. I have shown that the possibility to produce more energy out than in is inherent in the electrical phenomena but has been overlooked until now. So, it's not a matter of dismantling but adding to the existing physics.

Golly Omnibus.  I actually recall you mentioning this in one of your posts.  I'm reasonably certain that your own ideas here are not the same as mine.  But I assure you.  While I've no confidence in the theories advanced on the basis of electron current flow - I'm absolutely satisfied that mainstream will endorse the 'right' answer - whatever it is.  When a theory is finally published on this - then it will have been entirely vetted.  And my own poor efforts here are only conceptually valid.  Needs the expertise of the dreaded 'academic'.  LOL.  And in the unlikely event that there's any merit to these my efforts - then it's simply in as much as I have tried to make the concepts easily understandable.  I'm somewhat anxious to assure all that the 'logic' is very much within our average reach.  Physics is fun.  It really is.  It's just discussion of this has been entirely appropriated by so called experts.  It needs to be put out there if it's ever going to be freed from that jealous grasp.  LOL

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, as far as I understand, you take the fact that your papers are not even being submitted for review as showing that these journals know they are really true but they don't want to accept it and they don't want your studies to become known. Sadly, there's another option and unfortunately it may be the more likely option--by not even submitting the papers for review these journals are not only rejecting them but are simply ignoring them. They simply "know" this is incorrect and don't even give it the time of day. Sad, indeed. It's not even preventing them from publication. Plain and simple ignoring.

This attitude of the journals has to be fought somehow and I'm willing to help in this respect as difficult as it is.

In the meantime, could you please tell me names of academics who have independently verified your experimental results so that I can contact them and even visit them -- here in the US or in Europe where I'm going to be in September.

I've highlighted the comment that I take extreme exception to Omnibus.  It shows me how little you understand about the publication of an academic paper.  In the first instance a paper is submitted to an editor.  The editor then submits the paper to an appropriate reviewer.  That is the standard process.  The reviewer then vets the paper to determine any errors.  If they are minor the author is offered an opportunity to amend.  If they are major the paper is rejected on the following basis - "REJECTED MAY NOT BE RE-SUBMITTED"

The prelude to our own paper included a discussion with two sub editors and the IEEE's main editor.  They had ample opportunity to read every aspect of that paper prior to its formal submission process.  They invited us, notwithstanding the unusual nature of the claim - to formally submit the paper.  We did so.  Then there was obviously some discussions.  They came back to us - literally within 5 minutes of formal submission - to ask us to submit it to a physics reviewed journal as they felt unable to comment on the results.  I have copies of all that correspondence and have made the most of it available on EF.com.  I can do the same here if required.  Our paper still bears the dubious distinction of NOT BEING REJECTED AFTER REVIEW.  That would have put paid to these our efforts - forever, as it would have required a discreditation of the measurents or the measurement protocols.  I am satisfied that this would have been the preferred course.  As it is they dropped the paper like the proverbial 'hot potato'.  They simply did not have the 'balls' to tackle it.

It concerns me that you rather refer to your own suspicions here than first seek clarification of the facts.  I hope I've now disabused you of these suspicions.

And regarding your requirement to speak to those academics that have accredited these results?  Exactly who are you referring to?  I have NEVER claimed academic accreditation.  That is precisely what has been lacking in this exercise.  And, btw I am in South Africa and accreditation by sundry industrial laboratories - was done here, with the entire exception of ABB.  If you ever do get to our country then advise me and I'll gladly introduce you to those who are now dealing with the subject.  But their names and the institution is DEFINITELY not available for public knowledge unless and until that application is up and running and proven.  This for obvious reasons. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, I have vast experience in academia and academic research since I myself belong to the academic world and I have ample experience in submitting and publishing papers in academic peer-reviewed journals (tens of publications in various areas of chemistry and physics). Therefore, I know something about the submission and publication process and what rejection and especially ignoring of a submission means. I do believe they might have invited you to submit but I assure you the minute they learned what this is all about they have resorted, as far as I can see from your explanation, to the usual excuses when they want to ignore you and be polite at the same time. They just don't want to publish it. I'm only too familiar with this situation. So that state of affairs is sad, as I noted earlier, it's unacceptable though not at all unusual and something has to be done about it. In this respect it is very important that those of us who are trying to accomplish something in these worthwhile and very important pursuits should support each other. This is the only way to make a difference.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Omnibus - this is exhausting me.  The Editor in Chief and the two editors of both journals under the IEEE banner were ENTIRELY familiar with the claim.  Every aspect of it.  There was a serious proposal to get the journal to review.  But it was quashed - at the last minute - obviously after some considerable discussion amongst themselves.

I'll dig up the email correspondence that preceded our submission.  It addressed the thesis and the required result.  It was CERTAINLY well understood as the theme of that paper.  There is one aspect that I've not written - which may be at a level of interest that exceeds the readers here.  But I may as well put it on record.  Harvey did the data analysis based on a rather eccentric 'averaging' of the results from different waveforms.  Tektronix only guarantee results that are from a certain required minimum sample range.  From memory I think it's about 120 or thereby.  In other words they need multiple samples to get the required mean average.  What Harvey Gramm did was to take a further average of these multiple samples and from graduated lesser sample ranges and then make a kind of bulk average.  I was very aware of this.  He would not allow this to be amended and I suspect he realised that this would have put paid to acceptance for publication. 

Just prior to review their admin asked me to correct a small error where we had submitted the illustrations without appending a number for reference.  Because I was first author they returned the paper to me to correct this.  I used that opportunity to add the following sentence.  "The data has been deliberately averaged to give a conservative value".  This  therefore gave justification to that 'average' which otherwise would have seemed an unintentional error.  In retrospect I'm inclined to believe that they were aware of that error and would have submitted it to get that 'reject may not be resubmitted' number.  By adding that qualification effectively lost them that excuse.  But that is purely speculative.  I will never know for certain.  What I do know is that all seemed 'safe' to submit.  And then - notwithstanding - it was almost immediately rejected.

But that's enough about this Omnibus.  I did not realise that you were an academic.  Very interesting.  You would know - more than most - how politically incorrect are all these endeavours.  Yes I think one needs to pull together.  I have found Open Source to be a very flawed medium - rendered all the more insecure by the rampant self-serving egos of many contributors.  My own experience here was almost terminal to this technology.  Had I not faught back I think this entire endeavour of mine would have been buried by now.  That - and, latterly, Stefan' kind indulgence in allowing this thread.  But I realise now how tenuous these posts are.  I am very aware of many readers here who don't post on the threads.  They've given me continual background support.  Without this I think I may very well have folded.  Thanks to them all.  But I would earnestly advise readers that there is no guarantee to the continuation of this topic.  I just hope that this one will survive until the outcome of those application tests.

Many competing interests here guys. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

[TheCell]

<This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.>

So this non-standard wiring is described in this document?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
I think not.
If anyone convinced that following this link will lead to replication success, he /she should confirm this.
This thread is a promotion thread ,nothing else.