another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[eatenbyagrue]

Rosemary,

So you are a coward and a fraud ..... and you still say your device has a COP>INFINITY ....

I WANT TO BROADCAST IT "LIVE" ON MY WEB SITE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE !!!

ROSEMARY ARE YOU a FRAUD or COWARD or BOTH !!!


http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org


Fuzzy

*meow*

You sound like a broken record.  What is wrong with you?

[TinselKoala]

"What's wrong with you?"
Are you sure you're asking that of the right person?

It sounds to me like fuzzytomcat's offering the use of his website and bandwidth to stream a test of Rosemary's device to the world.
What is wrong with YOU, that you see something wrong with that?

And by the most liberal assumptions possible about "salt water" and boiling off quantities, you have still managed to come up with a Joule value that is NOT in excess of the battery's original capacity at all. Haven't you. Is there any way at all you can tweak your assumptions further, so that you can get somewhere near the 10.3 megaJoules contained in the battery at full charge? How about if the container the water was in melted down totally? Would that do it?

And note how slippery things are: the numbers and the way the test was done have changed. Now it's the resistor that was measured, not the water at all.

[fuzzytomcat]

Like I said Rosemary ....  there is a special place made just for you and I bet guests and members cant wait .....

http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/scamsshams.html

EVERY POST SEALS YOUR FATE !!!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, when the time comes I've already undertaken this... we'll do our own live broadcast of those tests.  Not sure how to yet.  But I'll undertake
to go through this learning curve.  I have no intention - whatsoever - of engaging with Glen Lettenmaier on any basis at all.  As I've tried to
point out he has stolen our paper as his own property and yet denies the claims in that paper.  I don't think one needs the IQ of your average
rocket scientist to work out that any engagement on any basis at all would be somewhat prejudicial.

I'm rather amused to see that TK thinks his proposal is reasonable.  Golly.  Actually guys - I've been rolling with laughter.  This is all rather
comical - if somewhat sad.  We see a self confessed scoundrel backing Glen Lettenmaier who - correspondingly - claims he is as innocent as the
driven snow.  And so it goes.  Hopefully before the day is out I'll be able to talk at length with Poynty - who's got some points that need
addressing and that eatenbyagrue will explain what's wrong with my power analysis.  I'm reasonably confident that unlike our trolls, they both of
them have something of value to contribute. 

As ever,
Rosemary

added
And I left out the best part.  MileHigh was re-instated after having been banned for the last year or two - in order to come to TK's defense - and
to advise us all that TK's not the scoundrel that TK himself acknowledges in an extraordinary gesture of candour.  We're advised that TK's a
'good guy' I think were his words.  It really is hysterically comical.  TK so openly candid and MileHigh - not so much.  This one's for you MileHigh.
LOL 

[fuzzytomcat]

Rosemary ..... your saying your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publications that the content are 100% TRUE and Factual.

YES   or   NO !!!

This is being recorded as your statement of fact, any thing other than a yes or no 24 Hrs from this posting if not answered, will be a "NO" and recorded as such !!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



We established "CUT OFF" dates for your NERD RAT published device schematics based on established 12 MARCH 2011 "VIDEO" evidence .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315729/#msg315729      Reply #1117 on: March 17, 2012, 12:45:43 AM



FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2011_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

12_MARCH_2011_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosemary your schematic in your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW and possible publication show .....

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

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

Both PDF schematics shown and referenced for PEER REVIEW is ....

12_MARCH_2011_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png   ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )

Therefore SCOPE SHOTS and DATA DUMPS for .....

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)

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)

AND THIS IS THE CORRECT "NERD RAT COP>INFINITY" DEVICE SCHEMATIC .....

FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2011_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG  ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC )


Your papers correct and completed submitted for PEER REVIEW and publication show the schematic is "incorrect" your scope shots and data dumps are wrong and the documents ......

ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf     ( Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus )
ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf    ( Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure )

These PDF's and content should be withdrawn anywhere and everywhere they are, followed by a retraction by YOU of the mistakes made in your "correct and completed" papers submitted for PEER REVIEW .