Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 05, 2012, 10:30:03 PM

Yep .... "OVERUNITY" all one has to do is a search of the 6000-7000 forum or blog postings of her bloviating and denials.

FTC

So she Does claim OU and she Doesn't claim OU.  She claims COP exceeds INFINITY and she claims NOTHING. OK.
That much is perfectly clear.

It's the Ainslie Uncertainty Principle. The more you try to pin her down the more she wriggles and squirms and changes meanings and edits old posts, and can't ever back up any claims either whichaway but by redefining commonly-understood words in her own terms. I mean, what use is a word anyway, if it can't mean whatever she wants it to mean?

Rosemary,

why don´t you quit writing and ranting here all day long and better do some new tests ?

Why did you want to buy new batteries ? Are you used ones now broken or discharged ?

When will you start some new tests ?


Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 05, 2012, 11:58:04 PM
Rosemary,

why don´t you quit writing and ranting here all day long and better do some new tests ?

Why did you want to buy new batteries ? Are you used ones now broken or discharged ?

When will you start some new tests ?


Regards, Stefan.

Hello Steve,

Since you ask this then let me see if I can put you fully in the picture.  The first point is that I've invested an enormous amount of time in this forum.  This to promote some insights in physics that are easily demonstrated and that result in a highly efficient transfer of electric energy.  Notwithstanding early interest by your members every single thread has then been railroaded by certain members of your forum - the most of whom - or their relatives - dominate this thread of TK's.  This has resulted in those threads being locked - and as often as not - I have been banned.

Now.  Whatever is said to the contrary - I don't think that anyone can seriously argue my hard work and passionate interest in alternate sources of energy.  I also know that your forum and your own apparent promotion of alternate energy indicates a predisposition to exploring all avenues and all claims related to this.  And the justification for this interest - and indeed the concerns related to this interest - are now so overwhelming - that without having some viable alternatives - then our poor planet is going to be rendered chronically and catastrophically asthmatic - in short order.  And all life that has, to date, enjoyed a relatively uninterrupted evolutionary progression - will then be snuffed - with a force and efficiency equal to that which caused the extinction of our dinosaurs.  That threat is ever looming.  Which means that your forum and your interests - being as they are designed to promote any alternative energy supplies - is MUCH required.  And I'm sure, much appreciated.  Certainly by me.

Not so much appreciated is the extraordinary lengths that picowatt, TK, FTC and MileHigh - together with a small band of acolytes - go, in order to disabuse your readers and your members of my competency - either intellectual or as it applies to my knowledge this technology - or, indeed, as it applies to my sanity. And trailing in the wake is the overriding objective of debunking or denying that there is any benefit in this technology.  I'll get back to this point.  For now, this observation is made with specific reference to the liberal application of slander that is advanced by all these 'personalities' who hide their actual identities and are thereby rendered unaccountable.  And seemingly, this is all done with your approval.  Nowhere do I see any effort to apply any kind of 'check' against their liberal traducement.  And yet, where I do indulge in countering this attack - then my threads are locked.  It seems somehow 'unfair'.  But as you are the forum owner - then this is, no doubt, the editorial bias that you can advance - or not - at your discretion.

continued/...

continued/...
Back to your question.  The delays related to my tests are manifold.  I would NEVER advance a test on this, the only remaining thread related to our technology - as its title is entirely and politically unacceptable and its associations somewhat unfortunate.  We, that is my collaborators and myself - are from South Africa.  We have a long history of injustices advanced by our estwhile National Party who monopolised the governance of this country through far too many generations.  There is not much difference between disenfranchisement and slavery.  Both are entirely unacceptable.  And that 'tarring' with the 'tar brush' has connotations of excess and abuse that TK, picowatt, FTC and MileHigh have indeed employed against my good name and against our technology.  And with that 'tarring' is the echo of those dehumanising excesses indulged by certain racists in their abuses against some poor wretched citizens in America.  Their intention here is flaunted in that Tar Baby thread title - with their typical lack of respect, constraint or concern for common decency.  And quite apart from their application of this abuse to my own good name are the same abuses, the same 'tarring' or 'blackening' applied, still with that well paraded  'intention' of abuse, against our technology.  And all this -  with the same level of inaccuracy, injustice and lack of validity in their argument.  And there has been no protest against this declared intention of abuse - other than by Magsy.  There is no self-respecting academic or professional who would associate with this thread title let alone the caliber of posting that is evidenced here.  And I need to engage those experts and those professionals.

While I've invested some considerable time in this work and on this forum - I'm now obliged to invest some real money.  To start with it was required to 'clear the decks' so to speak - just to find somewhere to accommodate the required tests.  Admittedly this was required and is not strictly a cost to this technology - it was nonetheless advanced - simply to 'clear' some much needed space.  This has cost me upwards of R30 000.00.  About $4 300.00.  Then.  In order to use the LeCroy without the 'ground pin' - which is to satisfy you that we do NOT have grounding issues - I've been obliged to buy that instrument.  This has cost me upwards of R30 000.00 at a HEAVILY discounted price.  Again about $4 100.00.  Because it's now my personal property we were obliged to get it calibrated.  And not as TK thinks of calibration - by simply standardising it's measurements against other uncalibrated machinery - but properly done - through registered calibration laboratories.  That's cost me R1 800.00 excluding VAT.  About $257.00.  (It is STILL not back from that laboratory BTW.) I have to invest in another digital multimeter.  That will cost upwards of R7 000.00.  About $1 000.00.  Then I had to buy a suitable camera in order to make those video downloads that are required.  That cost me R9 000.00.  About $1 300.00.  In order to test ALL the tests detailed in our paper that support our claim - I still have to buy not less than 12 suitable batteries.  Since I haven't chosen those batteries yet I can't give you an exact price.  But our budget for this is R6 000.00 or about $ 900.00.  That's a grand total - of not less than R 83 000.00 or $11 800.00 or thereby.  And that has not even factored in the money that will be required to install the software for the 'online' streaming nor the computer nor the software for the intended continual data capture.  The hope is that I can use my own.  And nor have I touched on the added security that we now need - which was the 'wake up call' of that intrusion and 'armed attack' where Loki was the victim - albeit unintended.  Conservatively this will cost us in the region of R12 000.00 or $1 700.00 for the required upgrade.  And then only would I feel safe in running those tests at all.

continued/...

Revised the count.  As ever, my math is not that good. 

THEN.  I still need to finalise the protocols.  At least I have the academics engaged.  But then too I need to design the tests that are needed to counter those manifold claims in the Tar Baby tests.  There's the argument that the source at Q2 is connected to the battery supply's negative rail.  There's the claim that the function generator is responsible for the input of energy.  There's the 555 test that needs to have the bias supply run from a rechargeable battery.  That's from the top of my head.  I have to go through each and every one of TK's videos - with a fine tooth comb - and where there's anything that needs countering then I need to prepare the protocols to counter them.  And those protocols will also need to be assessed by experts as being a valid counter claim.  And those smaller tests will also require both proof and detailed analysis and detailed results.  And that's not even touching on the draw down tests - which will be a challenge all on their own.  And it will also require either access to or purchase of a power supply to evaluate the wattage output required for various levels of dissipation - in the first instance.  Then too I need to prepare the argument against the EXCELLENT argument forwarded by Groundloop - that claims that we've got a standard Colpitt oscillation with the dissipation at the function generator rather than at the load. 

That's a mountain or work.  And meanwhile, while I'm something of an insomniac - these long hours that I have every day - are largely monopolised in countering the ongoing attack related to 'tarring' my good name.  It is time consuming.  And Stefan.  If you are anxious to see me 'put foot' then I would also advise you that perhaps TK can defer his efforts on this thread.  Clearly he is not going to perform any more tests.  And then - in the interests of fair play - and in the interests of expediting all these tests - may I impose on you to lock TK's thread.  At least until I have been given my own.  Then I will have full moderation and you can give the same to him.  And he can then continue his abuses when I'm in a position to counter them.

And just a final word.  A 'rant' is never logical, nor clearly expressed.  I object to the term 'rant' when I am simply defending my good name and our hard work.  I merely 'protest' reasonably and without the use of invective.  I do not think that any of these posts of mine are overly - or in any way - emotional.  With respect. And NO.  Our batteries are STILL at the rate of charge as when we received them.  But I won't be using them for the draw down tests because I do not know their watt hour rating and I have NO intention of running our draw down tests on batteries with a watt hour rating in excess of 20 hours.  I will GLADLY show you their charge value as they are now.  And I have STILL not recharged them.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary