another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And regarding this post and with reference to TK's assumption that because he didn't manage a replication then it obviates Glen Lettenmaier's
tests.  That argument is clearly somewhat flawed.  It only shows us that TK did not have Glen's experimental aptitudes.  And Glen, in turn, does
not have ours.  I think I've highlighted the appropriate.

And there's nothing new here.  TK is STILL not able to replicate our results.  He seems to think that he can thereby negate our own.  Far be it
from me to allege that he's an incompetent or an idiot.  That's likely to be considered libelous.  So.  I'll refrain and allow you all to draw your own
conclusions. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Guys

What a to do.       I don't want to count the number of pages that have now rolled over - courtesy our trolls.  I got a total of 31 notifications
of posting in my email - just yesterday.  The count roughly 5 'for' - 26 'against'.  Not sure if this is right but I think that works out at plus/minus
16% in favour .... and that number 'falling'.    On the whole I think over unity is still the loser.  And my poor efforts along with it.  As MileHigh
points out - it's round about now that I write LOL.  These stats are alarming.  If I was to lay a bet on the possible survival of over unity evidence
- then I'd plumb for a certain 'fail'.

Delighted to see that TK is still taking his own circuit variants seriously.  Else where would he find his justifications to
argue?  And then poor Glen Lettenmaier is trying to communicate something.  God alone knows what?  Clarity is not his strong point.  And
MileHigh - who's got a style of writing that I positively envy - is, unfortunately, now regressing into pure propaganda.  Again, MilesUpInTheAir -
this is for you.  LOL

And at the risk of boring you all with more repetition - there's been so, so much of it - here's the thing.  Our early claim of COP>17 was
replicated - in full public view.  A paper was written on this and roundly rejected by two publications within the IEEE group without going to
review.  That replication was subsequently and very articulately denied on Energetic Forum - by both Glen and Harvey Gramm.  Meanwhile
ownership of that paper was zapped by our Glen - who is nothing if not unscrupulous - and under oath he declared to Scribd authorities - that
this was exclusively his own work. I was not allowed to post the updated TIE version and was threatened with 'banishment' - God forbid - if I
persisted with this claim that I had any part of that paper.  I'm like the mother in the Bible who preferred to let the baby be taken away from her
than allow it to be cut in half and thereby killed.  Better something than nothing.   

But confusion ABOUNDS - as it's said.  Glen Lettenmaier claims he NEVER replicated anything at all.  Harvey helped him out by insisting that it
can't be a replication.  Glen only managed COP>4.  Rosemary managed COP>17.  Therefore, confusingly, the only conclusion to draw from this is
that Glen actually and independently orchestrated his own 'discovery'.  And in and amongst all these quibbles and niceties - the fact that there
was ever a breach of unity at all - was conveniently forgotten.  Therefore it's a comfort to read that at least Powercat acknowledges that unity
was, in fact breached.  And he tells us that 'everyone' knew this.  All along?  And here again I've just seen how urgently MileHigh has denied this.
And so it goes. 

Round and round the mulberry bush. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited a possesive pronoun.  Ever my weakness.   

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And finally, hopefully the last post for the morning and for eatenbyagrue

I'm not sure how to tell you this - as I really do not want to antagonise you in any way - but here's the thing - now approved by a power
engineering expert. It is required to incorporate the entire test period to evaluate the joules dissipated on that circuit.  So.  Indeed.  If it takes
4.18 joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade - then that's the rate of applied power over the entire test period.  Roughly 66
degrees above ambient  over 90 minutes for 60 seconds PER minute for each gram of those 900 grams.  Comes to (I
think) a total of 21 443 400 joules.  Just that.  Even before we take it to boil.  At which point we've exhausted the capacity of all five batteries.
The product over time is  required.  So guys.  That's how our utility suppliers justify their bill when we presume to make oxtail soup.  I'm not
about to get into an argument about this. For those of you who still doubt it then phone your local universities or your engineers that work for
your utility suppliers.  Our poor TK is apparently anxious to restructure our standard measurement protocols.
 
Which also means that my previous analysis was 'on the button'.  Again.  Don't argue this here.  PLEASE.  It's dominated far too many pages.
Just check it out with your own academic sources.  You'll find that academics are highly approachable.  They'll explain all this.  Which also means
that my previous claim is on the money - albeit that it's not part of our presentation in our paper. It simply proves that
our batteries have long outperformed their watt hour rating.  In that test alone it's exceeded. And they're still at 12 volts each - precisely the
voltage measured when we first took delivery of them. And as for evolvingape's analysis.  The less said the better.  But do not, please, any of
you, lose sight of those multiple protests by TK that has  dominated this thread in so many posts and over so many pages.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Subject to his permission I'll copy that email.  But I'm not sure that he'll want his name associated with this thread.  That'll be his choice.
I fondly anticipate another plus/minus six pages of protest as Glen Lettenmaier and TK continue with their howls of protest.  But please scroll
past this.  If required I'll just repost these morning posts here.

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi members and guests,

I was advised to add the following PROOF in support of my defense from the unfounded slanderous allegations from Rosemary of THEFT of her "THESIS" technology and discovery.

This does relate to the accusation of stealing her technology for a verification of her THESIS ( BS ) ...... but for me it was to try and verify the Quantum 2002 article ( quantum_october_2002.pdf )  COP>17  "CLAIM" .  ( noted as self written by Rosemary Ainslie )

Please Find Attached -  ( Request_for_return_due_to_misleading_intent.pdf )

100% verifiable full e-mail correspondence to and from Tektronix with a "END" demand from them for Rosemary to modify her misrepresentation of many facts in her postings at Energetic Forum HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, also including the immediate request for return of the loaned oscilloscope equipment I had in my possession and the total disconnect from any other equipment loans to the Open Source community to distance Tektronix from this verification of Rosemary Ainslie's claims.

PARTIAL QUOTE .........

Yesterday, I received a request from Rosemary to read the COP>17 blog. I wanted to let you know that I
requested she remove some content as it was misleading in regards to the intent of the instrument loan.
Following was my exact request:
- - - - - - -
I did finally read the latest postings. Now that I have read them, I ask that you remove the following references
from your posting:

"And that thesis was explicitly referenced in the early chapters of my association with Tektronix.
That was the basis of our use of the equipment. Always a specific condition of use. Never a loan. In
fact we were early advised never to use the term. it did not sit well with Tektronix. This condition
was my assurance to them that all the information would be collated and be made available to the
public to use in any way they chose - strictly in line with good open source tradition. That is also not
open to dispute.
May I ask you therefore, Glen, if there is any variation to this agreement that you have negotiated
with Tektronix? I am satisfied that it was Aaron's understanding that nothing was to be withheld from
the public. And I am certain that he would not do so. Are you, on the contrary, withholding access to
your data? Are you now uncovering information that you are withholding not only from the public but
from the authors in this collaboration? And do you consider that this is your right to do so? It hardly
seems to be in support of Open Source interests nor in the spirit in which you accessed that
equipment through Tektronix's good offices, in the first instance. And is Harvey and Ashtweth aware
of this? And both on record to secure open source interests?"


And...

"I suggest, with the utmost respect, that you are somehow negotiating an ownership and a sole right
to this experiment to the entire advantage of yourself and, possibly Harvey and Ashtweth. Again. I
would be glad to hear that this is entirely wrong. If I do not hear from you I will ask Tektronix to
clarify this."
These references make it appear that Tektronix was doing more than loaning a piece of
equipment. My purpose with the loan was to support a request I received from the marketing team
in Europe. The Europe team was hoping your team's application of the instrument in support of the
over-unity research would make a possible PR piece. But as you are aware, the research is really,
really too complicated for a simple PR piece. I ask again that you please remove these references.

- - - - -
I provide this to you to ensure you are aware of what
the exact terms of the loan was...as you can see there we no real strings attached. Again, I provide this just for
your understanding and not be used against Rosemary.
In my humble opinion, I think she is going through a phase of depression right now.
Hope everything settles out well. When that happens, let me know...it was amazing to watch a dispersed group
of individuals rallying together to achieve something with nothing more than sheer passion to drive them all.

[MileHigh]

It is required to incorporate the entire test period to evaluate the joules dissipated on that circuit.  So.  Indeed.  If it takes 4.18 joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade - then that's the rate of applied power over the entire test period.  Roughly 66 degrees above ambient over 90 minutes for 60 seconds PER minute for each gram of those 900 grams.  Comes to (I think) a total of 21 443 400 joules.  Just that.  Even before we take it to boil.  At which point we've exhausted the capacity of all five batteries.  The product over time is required.  So guys.  That's how our utility suppliers justify their bill when we presume to make oxtail soup.  I'm not about to get into an argument about this. For those of you who still doubt it then phone your local universities or your engineers that work for your utility suppliers. Our poor TK is apparently anxious to restructure our standard measurement protocols.

It takes 4.18 Joules/gram x 900 grams = 3762 Joules to raise 900 grams of water by one degree Celsius.

Therefore if we want to raise 900 grams of water by 66 degrees we multiply 3762 x 66 = 248292 Joules.

This calculation is independent of the time dimension.

This is a prime example of the nonsensical idiocy associated with Rosemary's claim.  If you want to take that as an indicator and make some inferences, then you can infer that the capacitor test will show that her circuit consumes power and will drain the batteries flat.

Rosemary still hasn't commented on the capacitor test because she is mortally afraid of doing it.

Like I have already stated, this foolishness has simply gone on too long and the days are numbered for Rosie's claim.  It's just too much.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It takes 4.18 Joules/gram x 900 grams = 3762 Joules to raise 900 grams of water by one degree Celsius.

Therefore if we want to raise 900 grams of water by 66 degrees we multiply 3762 x 66 = 248292 Joules.

This calculation is independent of the time dimension.

This is a prime example of the nonsensical idiocy associated with Rosemary's claim.  If you want to take that as an indicator and make some
inferences, then you can infer that the capacitor test will show that her circuit consumes power and will drain the batteries flat.

Indeed MileHigh your number is correct.  But we ran this part of the test for a period of slightly more than 90 minutes of that entire test period.
Are you proposing that no further energy was put into that water?  Did the applied energy somehow stop at 66 degrees above ambient?  At
roughly 5 minutes after the start of that test period?  Golly.  Are you proposing that we can take the oxtail soup to boil and then simply switch off
the stove for the duration that we're cooking it?  That would be nice.  We'd pay far less to our utility suppliers.  It did not take 90 minutes to get
900 grams of water to 66 degrees above ambient.  It took no time at all.  The resistor was already at 260 degrees or thereby - and climbing -
before it was immersed in that water.

Here's what I know.  I can turn down the heat - reduce the current - to sustain the 'boil' in that oxtail soup.  But I would also need to put a lid on
that pot - or it will stop boiling at a reduced current flow.  We did not apply that 'lid'.  Nor did we turn down our current flow.  It was not altered
at all.  It steamed for the duration - bar only for those early few moments while the heat from the element dispersed into the water.  When it was
taken to 'boil' it took a further 10 minutes - and then only was the current turned off - the pot disconnected.

And this test was conducted and reported on - here on this forum - in real time.

And you have NOT yet answered the questions related to Glen Lettenmaier's REPLICATION.  Are you also proposing that that was an IDLE CLAIM?
Is this what you're warning everyone to desist from 'believing'?  That no-one to date - has ever managed to exceed unity?  If so, then tell Glen
to remove his paper from Scribd.  Because that's what that paper is stating.  And that way I can post the corrected paper on my own Scribd file.
 
Regards,
Rosie Pose

edited to accommodate line length due to Glen's 'resizing' of this page.