another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Poynty Point,

I was wondering if you'd write.  Always a pleasure to hear from you.  And I trust you enjoyed the seasonal festivities.  You mention something about not taking my condiments?  Condiments?  Not sure what you mean.  Condiments are the spice of life?  I'm not sure that you didn't mean something else.  Very confusing.  But indeed.  I do enjoy spices.  In fact I LOVE cooking.  It's a kind of hobby of mine.  Let me know what you actually meant.  I'm rather curious.   

Now.  You write that I've been busy.  On the contrary.  I should have been working on my thesis as it relates to gravity.  Instead of which I've spent the last 24 hours engrossed in this challenge of ours for your prize money.  Very alluring. And all six of us are MOST anxious to put our best foot forward and see if we can separate you from this.  Our intention is, however, entirely commendable.  Because when we've defrayed your travel costs then we'll donate the balance to someone like Gotoluc or some worthy experimentalist that you guys nominate - to buy some much needed broadband oscilloscopes. 

The conditions that we require may be slightly 'unusual'.  You see I've been following the comments that you subscribe to on that blog that you've dedicated to me - and that is simply an unfortunate schedule of some rather inappropriate hate speech.  Under usual circumstances one could appeal to Wiki to get you to remove that blog.  But frankly I get a real kick out of reading it - on a daily basis.  It reminds me how frightened you all are that the whole world may take our claim seriously.  And I see it as a kind of hysterical effort to try and prevent this.  It lacks a certain want of constraint - is my only criticism.  But good heavens.  It's always a pleasure to indulge one's freedoms of expression.  And, frankly, it's as well that I know how fond you all are of me.  Else I'd be left with the distinct impression that you didn't like me.  Golly.

Here's that link.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/

But.  To the point.  The sad truth is that your intentions there are probably to spread the word that our experimental evidence is based on fallacious measurements.  You're very likely trying to imply that I'm a 'fraud' - in your efforts to deflect public attention from our rather extraordinary results.   Which means that a certain 'partiality' has crept into your general approach to this question.  And none of us collaborators are at all sure that you'll test our apparatus fairly.  It will likely NOT be handled with any judicious and scientific protocols that are required.  You see the problem?  I hope.  Let me try this again.  You have all contracted  to evaluate a claim without detailing the apparatus that you intend applying in that evaluation.  You realise, of course, that on ours and, indeed most experiments related to this 'art' of 'over unity' that it relies on certain frequencies.  Therefore these required subtleties of tuning also require sophisticated measuring equipment.  And I'm not sure that you can access this.  Then, even when it's to hand, I'm concerned that your agenda may best be served by doing some rather clumsy tuning.  And then you won't find that benefit.   So.  We put our heads together and came up with a solution.  It's detailed in my blog.  Let me know what you think.

Here's that link
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/222-we-claim-those-prizes-offered-by.html

Regarding your claim that our measurements are wrong.  Not sure where?  Could you please point out where, in our paper, our protocols deviate from standard protocols.  I can assure you that our paper has been vetted by some rather weighty academics and, apart from one small error in one of our equations - it has only solicited the highest commendations.  And we have corrected that error in the pdf version that I sent you.  Feel free to publish it - here or anywhere.  And in the same way.  Feel free to comment.

I'm also a little concerned that you think I've been 'attacking' your - or indeed, anyone's good name?  Are you serious?  I thought it was the other way around.  I, after all, have the evidence in that blogspot that you contribute to.  What exactly do you based this concern on? Do let me know.  I'll attend to it immediately.  I'd be sorry to think that my comments are as mindless are those that are evident there - and indeed everywhere on your forum.

So.  Poynty Point.  I look forward to hearing from you again - in the near future.  It seems like this new year has started off well.  Certainly it's given me a renewed interest in these forums.  Much more dynamic - wouldn't you say?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose. 

[poynt99]

The sad truth is that your intentions there are probably to spread the word that our experimental evidence is based on fallacious measurements.  You're very likely trying to imply that I'm a 'fraud' - in your efforts to deflect public attention from our rather extraordinary results.

Being "fallacious" and a "fraud" implies that the person or persons behind it are fully aware of what they are perpetrating. This would be affording too much credit in your case.
The truth is that your results are erroneous not because you are trying to be fraudulent, but because of your ignorance regarding these types of measurements and circuits.

Regarding your link and silly offer, I am certain I've already made my comments above quite clear, and there is no need to repeat nor expound on them. If it is not clear to you, please have someone explain it to you.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Poynty Point,

Do I detect that spider - 'pinned and wriggling to the wall' that TS Eliot refers to?  Are you suffering from that 'too, too bright light' - that shines on your motives?  Are you concerned that we, the public, will learn that behind all that dismissive 'bluff and blunder' that you now flaunt - is an entire lack of any ability to evaluate any energy - at all?  Is that the problem? 

With the utmost respect I get the distinct impression that you - and Ramset for that matter, are both avoiding the issue.  Let me see if I can remind you both.

You only need to refer to our paper.  We detail the measurement protocol applied to our test.  Very well, I might add.  Then we extrapolate the values related to 4 tests which are a merely a small sample of over 100 tests that we have on our data base.  They ALL result in a 'negative wattage'.  Now, you and I both know that if the energy dissipated at a load resistor - (that thing that you refer to as POUT) - exceeds the energy that is supplied by a supply source - (which you also erroneously refer to as PIN) - THEN - in the immortal words of our astronauts - 'HOUSTON.  WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM'.   You see there is nothing within the standard model that allows for this.  The ASSUMPTION is that one can never exceed the amount of energy first delivered by the supply source - again that PIN thing. 

SO.  Not only do we prove that we exceed unity - but by the very measurements themselves - we prove that there must be supplied by an alternative energy source.  Which is REMARKABLE.  Because that goes against the standard model.  But all is not lost.  Because, you see this I trust.  Einstein himself proposed that energy is within matter.  We're simply able to endorse this fact.  AND.  We therefore MUST be able to exceed unity.

You know what I'm referring to here?  That PRIZE that you're offering.      It really is forfeit Poynty Point.  You need to swallow that bitter pill. And no amount of accusations against my obvious delusion - my clear want of intelligence - nor my dubious mental stability - can detract from EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that any evaluation of my own apparently criminal character, nor my age - speech, language preference, - not even the colour of my hair, the number of my teeth, my preference for breakfast - any of these things - is IN ANY WAY RELEVANT.  Its the measurements that need to be addressed.  And the method of analysis applied to those measurement.  Which may call on an uncharacteristic professionalism from you to evaluate.  But.  There you go.  That's what's needed.

Unless, of course, you're happy to let the entire world know that your prize offer is simply some kind of LURE to the unsuspecting - to then POYNTIFICATE on the results and DECLARE THEN VOID.  Surely not. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie

(added)

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello guys,

I'm just going to add this quickly - then I really need to do some work.

Poynty and others have managed to persuade some of you that our experimental evidence is 'fallacious' - I think is Poynty's new preferred term.  The thing that motivated this 'challenge' of ours is that they are all about to embark on yet another predatory excursion to hound out the claims of a certain Russian Professor who has some interesting proof of over unity.  It's done under the pretense of 'impartiality' which is absurd.  Not only does Poynty himself NOT know how to evaluate energy - but he applies a rather exotic terminology couched in equally exotic ACRONYMS - to prove his rather flawed argument - those Poynts that disperse at all angles -  'tangentially'.   I'm not sure of the right term.



Ramset - bless him - knows this.  He is, therefore most anxious to let them adjudicate the results.  Which would be more appropriate if they - any of them - had a clue how to measure power.  But be that as it may.  More to the point is that there are some remarkable results that are evident in a certain Andrea Rossi's experimental evidence that delivers nuclear efficiencies without the toxic emissions related to the waste from a nuclear process.  IF they even addressed that much - then they'd appreciate that this extended debate over the existence or otherwise of any over unity at all - is NOW OBSOLETE.  It has, indeed, been conclusively PROVEN.  It's in the bag.  Done and delivered.  No more need to argue.  And all that is still required is the explanation for this energy - which has eluded us all for so, so long.

But rather than go there - they're still - rather obsessively - trying to quarrel with the evidence of more and more experimentalists.  Just know, if it's any comfort - that the access of this energy is now abundantly evident and that there is some very real cause for celebration.  I was rather hoping that I'd engage Poynty in a discussion about the basis of his denial of our own results.  I'm well able to argue their validity.  But he realises this and is, therefore, refusing to engage.  Sad.  In some ways.  But at least this exercise manages to highlight that rather unscientific attitude of his - where he prefers to 'bash old ladies' and allege anything that he wants with an entire freedom from the facts at issue.

I have still to address the response from Harti and from Steven E Jones.  Both are more disposed to accreditation.  I'll have to thrash out the terms though as Harti's requirement is not so much for COP>1 as it is for perpetual motion.  I'm a little concerned that perpetual motion is way outside our own claims.  But I'll get there.  It's important to establish the basis of proof - as it is to establish the measurements that are evaluated in that proof.  And Steven E Jones has expressed some real interest.  I'll need to find out on what basis.

I'll get back here.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Corrected.  'tangenitally' to 'tangentially'
GOLLY

[powercat]

Unbelievable, attacking Ramset someone who has always done his very best to help anybody trying to develop free energy, 
he is truly a hero of the free energy community and has been known for his efforts for many years.

Rosie it is no surprise to me that you are still playing the blame game and the conspiracy theory card,
yes it gets you noticed and really that's all you seem to be interested in when it comes to your claims
and before you write me a long boring post the evidence is obvious for all to see by looking at your previous posts.

All your claims over the years have resulted in not one person on this forum being able to replicate your claims, including members on here that come to your defence.

Rosie's simple rule is this if you say her device doesn't work, then you will be attacked and accused of being in a conspiracy
and the reason why Rosie doesn't admit her mistakes and work with good people to develop a real free energy device is a sad state of affairs, because when she's not talking about her own claims she can make a positive contribution to this community