another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ah, yes, Rosemary's description of the troll with super powers. It's amazing isn't it, how somebody who isn't even in the same COUNTRY and who only can interact over the internet, is SO POWERFUL that they can suppress the demonstration of Free Energy technology just by talking shite about it. It's all the fault of the damn skeptical trolls. Why, without them we'd have antigravity bicycles and free energy refrigerators that charge batteries, and cold fusion reactors in every basement, and maybe even have a cure for cancer by now. But the damn internet trolls !! How is anyone supposed to get anything done, when someone on the internet actually DISAGREES with you? Talk about a downer. I get so depressed when somebody disses my work that I just clam up totally, call a lawyer, and pout, since nobody can overcome the  power of the Evil Skeptical Internet Troll. Testing is impossible in such an environment, where trolls insist on actually seeing correct calculations and diagrams. How stupid, how repressive is that? No testing is possible as long as there is a single superpowerful internet troll anywhere; they must all be banned or sued or...even.... killed with one stone, along with that other bird. Otherwise, there is no way that it will be possible to assemble all those light bulbs and batteries.... there are more than I have fingers, so  I lose track of them..... and besides, the TROLLS distract me, I can't work with a troll breathing down my neck all the time, insisting that I calculate correctly.... it's just too much, I'm calling a lawyer. Ban those trolls immediately, or I'm going to stamp my foot and pout!

You put it so well Tk.  And delighted to be reminded about that super troll exercise of mine.  You don't qualify as the super troll - you realise?  I hope?  Not in the same league.  You're way too clumsy.  The trick is to pretend to agree and then pretend to support all.  Then pull the rug at the last minute and pretend to be outraged.  You're a mere beginner.  Speak to Harvey .  He'll show you how it's done.

Rosie Pose

[The Boss]

 
Mr Hartmann,

Where is the test ?

.

[TinselKoala]

Everything you say is a lie, Rosemary. You cannot support any of it with facts and references. But I can support what I say with facts, references, and WITNESSES.

And while I'm thinking about it.  Can you explain why you have not yet tested that apparatus that you claim is now identical to ours?

You are lying. There is an entire thread and over 20 videos showing what you claim I have not showed. You LIE again.

That is barring the fact that you're not using that element resistor that you paraded so threateningly?

Again you LIE. Take a look. I use the "element resistor" and several other loads as well. YOU LIE.

Where is the definitive test?

I have offered time and time again to have TarBaby tested side by side with your NERD device, by the same methods, and analyzed the same way. YOU HAVE NOT.  I have done the dim bulb test. YOU HAVE NOT. AGAIN YOU LIE.

Why is Glen Lettenmaier not showing us this on his little broadcast number?

You'll have to ask  him. Why should he be concerned at all with what I do? Clearly, it is YOU who are worried about it. 

Where is your schematic and detailed parts?   

The schematic that I use is the SAME ONE YOU CLAIMED TO USE, once your stupid errors were discovered and corrected. It has been published alongside my testing SEVERAL TIMES. The parts are the SAME as yours, except for the batteries and the CLIPLEADS AND WHITE PEGBOARD. Again you lie. Or are you now claiming that one must have the exact "custom" load that you show, measuring exactly 11.11 ohms? You are pitiful in your grasping at straws. SHOW ME ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TARBABY AND NERD. You cannot.

Where are your results?

My results are more accessible and open to inspection and DUPLICATION than your results. My results are posted in detail and everyone except YOU knows where they are. YOU LIE.

What are you battery voltages? 

Given in EVERY ONE of my videos where it is important. DISPLAYED ON MY OSCILLOSCOPE SCREEN if you only knew how to read one.

How long did your test last?

THERE IS A CLOCK SITTING IN FRON T OF THE BATTERIES IN THE DIM BULB TEST. Other tests lasting much longer are also documented with time-temperature-current data. Where is the corresponding data from YOU? It doesn't exist.

Where are you scope probes showing the measurements. 

Now you are really grasping at straws. Let anyone reading here tell you: My probes are positioned on my circuit in the SAME PLACES that yours are on yours, and this is documented many times.

What's the calibration of the scope?

You don't know what that even means. On EVERY trace I show exactly where the zero baseline level is, what the timebase is, and what the channel settings and coupling is. YOU don't even know what those things mean.   

Which function generator did you use? 

Come on, fans, what function generator did I use? Why have I covered up this important fact? ROSEMARY, what FUNCTION GENERATOR DID YOU USE? An isotech 345? Orly?

Why are you claiming a DEBUNK without giving us the results? Must we just take your word for it?

You are lying again. Can you utter a single sentence without lying? I don't think so.

When we all know how fast and loose is your commitment to your word?

List an example where I have been "fast and loose" with a "commitment to my word." You cannot.

With the utmost disregard,
Rosie Pose

You lying hypocrite. GET ON WITH YOUR TESTING. Are you gonna let a mere TROLL stop you from saving the world? Or are you going to continue to wail and moan that the big old troll is preventing you from testing?

NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU, except for YOU, Rosemary, and really... we all knew all along that you never intended to perform any definitive test.

OTHERWISE..... why aren't you doing it? Are the trolls stopping you? Or is it something else that's stopping you?

[TinselKoala]

Why was the second part of the VIDEO that you now claim isn't yours, why was that done with only four batteries instead of five?

I challenge you to repeat that second part of the video, where you are getting high heat in your load--- only this time use the full battery pack of 5 or better yet all 6 batteries.

Why was the battery pack reduced for that test? You and I both know the reason.

Let's see you do that test, using the exact same instrument settings, using 6 batteries.

[TinselKoala]

Guys

You see for yourselves the rather absurd reliance on popular opinion to argue science.  What is absolutely critical to TK's so called 'debunk' is a critical need to not reference the actual claim that is detailed in our papers.  You can guess why no doubt.  It's because our claim is measured and thoughtful and carefully presented.  He dare not let anyone know that unlike his own poor efforts, our work is commendably clear and commendably professional.

No it is not. It is word salad of the worst kind, written by fools who have no idea how to present an experimental report.

Which is also why he relies on that video.  I must admit that I thought it was taken off the write up in Sterling Allen's blog.  It seems, in fact, that they've rifled it from my own photobucket.  No surprises.  They've forced themselves in there many times in the past.

THE VIDEO IS ON YOUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL, ms. doozydont. No "rifling" or forcing is required, it's up for public display just as you posted it back on the 22nd of March 2011, where it has been PUBLICLY AVAILABLE all this time.

But just as a reminder.  That video  does not constitute our claim but merely demonstrates the co-incidence in numbers between two instruments.

The video SAYS that is constitutes your claim. It reviews and demonstrates your claim, or tries to and fails, and it refers to the "papers" you keep citing. And of COURSE the two instruments are "coincident"... they are connected to the SAME POINTS in parallel. What a waste of scope power.

Added to which he has not been able to correctly identify the displays on a sadly over exposed and incorrectly tabulated screen shot - in the hopes that you may all confuse him with some kind of consultative authority.  In one rather amusing example of this he presents the Tektronix as if it's the LeCroy and carefully edits out the boundaries of the instrument that you may confuse it with the LeCroy.  Trust me on this.  It's yet another shot of the Tektronix.

Oh really? I have published 3 scope shots from that video,two from the TEK and one from the LeCroy, and all are identified. Which one is "carefully edited out", which one does not identify the scope correctly? If I've made an error SHOW ME so that I can correct it. 

But such examples proliferate.  He claims to default the function generator to DC mode and the poor waveform then drifts to heights that if you were to calculate the energy then moving through those 'brown' transformers of his - it would, in all probability, nuke those body diodes in the MOSFETS.

Are you here accusing me of fakery? Anyone can repeat what I've shown for themselves and confirm what I've shown. WHO CAN DO THE SAME FOR YOU?  Everyone who has tried has found out that YOUR CLAIMS ARE WRONG.

Then too he keeps referring to 'mosfets' as he has no idea that it's an acronym.

This is ridiculous and stupid. Would you prefer if I called them  "metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors"every time I mentioned them? Why don't YOU do this, then? Idiot troll.

This is very much in keeping with his sad and rather pretentious little references to 'latin' phrases which are invariably inappropriately applied.

example please. PER: this has been explained to you over and over, Miss Argumentum Ad Hominem.

He insinuates much.  Ever in the hopes that you will be confused that this is evidence of his knowledge.  And he nurses the rather fond requirement that he will not need to explain himself. 

Again you lie. My explanations are clear enough that an eighth-grader could understand them. An eighth-grader that took some math, that is. Sorry that you don't qualify.

Which reminds me TK.  You have still not answered a very pertinent post by hoptoad.  We're all waiting.

What pertinent post? I have always answered every coherent and relevant question that has been asked of me. WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS? In your "paper" ? What a joke.

If, indeed he presented his arguments clearly and concisely - no ambiguities - nothing left to question - then it would be deemed an affront to the bad science that he requires.  It's all pretension and nonsense.  On the one hand he tries to pretend that he's making a subtle point of some sort out of reach of common intelligence.  And then, on the other he insults us all by presuming to teach us Ohm's Law. 

You clearly need some remedial education since you make so many simple errors of math and logic. Where are my calculations in error? Where are YOURS in error?

And when he's filled another half page with irrelevancies - allegations - innuendos - implications - he simply starts on the next half page.   

All of the "irrelevancies" are coming from YOU Rosemary. Imagine how clean this thread would be if you stopped lying about me and Glen and MH and .99 and the rest of us. We could start talking about TESTING YOUR CIRCUIT..... but that is exactly why you are doing all this verbiage, to avoid TESTING.

Or Glen Lettenmaier - or MileHigh come in and fill that space.  And their contributions are equally as loaded with all the malice and slander that they can possibly manage - with the intention of dominating page after page of thread space in whichever threads they choose.  And he has the rather laughable audacity of pretending that he is somehow authorised, qualified - God knows what - to engage my own attorney and any attorney amongst the members here - to support his viewpoint - or alternatively to dispense with some free consultation.

By "engaging" do you mean pointing out facts that YOU are trying to cover up? So be it then.

It is grossly apparent that we are dealing here with an individual who is overqualified in the use of entirely unprofessional methodologies to diminish any claim of over unity - be it my own or be it LENR - or be it anything at all that promises anything at all.  He avers to personalities that would not engage in a discussion with him under any pretext at all - and requires that they 'confer' with him.  What is he thinking?  I am reasonably satisfied that no self-respecting professional would even engage with Glen Lettenmaier - let alone our tinselkoala - who manages to breach all common decencies with a flair and panache that would relegate him confined to the outer perimeters of any respectable institution, let alone  any respectable home.  And yet he seems to see justification in charging through these threads spreading chaos on confusion - as some kind of service to humanity.  God help us all.

I put it to you TINSELKOALA - that if you require a modicum of respect for anything at all - that you learn the courtesies that are required by common decencies, and that you apply good and clear argument as required by science.

Rosemary

Some grammar and some spelling

And I put it to you ROSEMARY AINS_LIE, that you are a hypocrite, a liar, and an ignorant fool, and I'd be glad to debate you in public in front of a bunch of your "academics" and let them decide who makes the more sense. You bring your device and I'll bring mine, and let's see if ANY instrumental measurement or calculation shows a significant difference between mine and yours. I will even YET AGAIN offer to send my device to any INDEPENDENT tester you like, as long as your device is sent too, for side-by-side testing using both YOUR procedures and calculations, and MINE. Or, alternatively, any test that the tester would like to perform, as long as BOTH devices are tested and compared.

WHY AREN'T YOU TESTING RIGHT NOW? Is there some problem, somebody holding you back?