Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2012, 01:08:29 AM
My dear little TK

I need only refer to the work that has already made very public - all over the internet - by someone who will certainly NOT be allowed membership on my forum.  It is my opinion that he's a scoundrel and a liar.  I intend proving this. And I have every RIGHT to defend my good name and our excellent work - from that slander.

Rosie Pose

Polly Parrot, if you call me a liar you had better be able to back it up with PROOF. Like I always do when I demonstrate that YOU are a LIAR.

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 21, 2012, 01:10:07 AM


You are currently talking about a laboratory in the USA ... you even use the phrase "our laboratory"... but you have not named this laboratory. Why not? Are you afraid that some other people might contact them with information you don't want them to have? Or is your laboratory really some fringe experimenter like Rick Friedrich or Peter Lindemann or Sterling Allan? Or... is your laboratory simply a figment of your imagination, conjured up to rationalize your continued LACK OF TESTING?

Are you referring to this post Little TK?

Hi Poynty Point,

In a way we've done that test. The eternal quibble is that the batteries have in fact discharged and are about to collapse due to complete exhaustion of their capacity.  The recommendation is that we need only run it for a while longer and then the collapse will become evident.  And thereby are any of these type of results - entirely dismissed.  I can't got through all that nonsense again Poynty.  I would rather not be twice bitten.

It will certainly result in really long and somewhat boring tests.  But we're all of us up for it.  I'm throwing a little bit of money at these tests as I'm anxious to get CONCLUSIVE results.  And we certainly also need to re-run the COP>17 test with its circuit variant - to counter the manifold denials associated with this test and its replication.  This to establish the proof of slander that's associated with this test everywhere on these rather public energy forums.  It should then result in some much needed retrospective editing required - even on your own forum, come to think of it.  Perhaps you can set an example and do that editing prior to these tests?  Poynty Point?

No.  I think on the whole that we need to keep to these comparative draw down numbers.  That way the results are unequivocal.  But I also agree that we need to conclude each test with some evidence that the heat dissipated into a medium such as water or oil - show equivalent temperature rises.

I am hoping to get some indication as to the kind of tests that our lab in the USA are going to do.  They're really boffins - to a man.  I'd love to see how they resolve this required proof.  I think their early intention is to simply establish the measured COP infinity number.  That's an anomaly all on its own.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Then EAT YOUR HEART OUT.

Rosie pose

When are you going to correct Ahern's math, you liar Anslie?

Yes, I am referring to the information you are withholding about your "open source project".

Or maybe this one?   

Dear readers and members

I have some wonderful news.  A really well established and LEADING research laboratory in America have undertake to test our apparatus.  This means that some highly qualified experts will apply themselves to these anomalous results.  It seems that publication of our paper has also resulted in an appropriate response. 

I believe their intention is to do some preliminary tests and then to build their own circuit variants in order to explore this effect more thoroughly.  Their expertise is across the board - and includes chemists and electrical engineers - and THEORISTS.  And all EXPERT - which is precisely what is needed.

I also believe that we'll be given their results on completion of those tests.  Subject to their permission I believe we should be able to make this available to you all.  When we get that apparatus back I'll start our own 'draw down' tests, which will be made available - 'live' on the internet with smaller youtube clips to explain any questions that may arise from that screening.

So.  I think we will soon have the rare and respectable acknowledgement of the anomalous negative wattage - and some indications as to how exploitable this is and what the theoretical implications of this are.  At its least it will challenge standard measurement protocols.  At best it will point to the need to revise those energy barriers defined in our Thermodynamic Laws. Which in turn will point to a boundless and clean energy source.  Much needed - on just so many levels.

It has been a pleasure to deal with this high caliber of talent and I anticipate some really interesting results.  Our modest apparatus is about to cross the Atlantic and be thoroughly inspected on every possible level.  I am enormously gratified.  I've waited some 12 years for this response.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Either way.  You're best efforts at all this misinformation - ARE ABOUT TO GO UP IN SMOKE.  LOL

Rosie Pose

You are not having a good night, are you Rosemary?

QuoteIt is my opinion that he's a scoundrel and a liar which is evidenced in his calumny and slander.  I intend proving this. And I have every RIGHT to defend my good name and our excellent work - from that slander - by anyone at all.  Anything less and we're back in the dark ages living under a regime of censorship dominated by bigotry and unsubstantiated allegation.

Picowatt is brilliant and he speaks the truth.  You make yourself look like a pathetic comic book character when you talk like that.

Everything that is "going down" with respect to you right now is just mini theater of the absurd.  You know full well that PW knows his stuff and he probably has 40+ years of experience and yet you feign your bullshit.  Just like you are fully aware how morally wrong it is to reveal someone's identity without their consent yet you try to pretend that it doesn't exist.

You are squirming and nobody is being fooled, including yourself.

MileHigh