another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And.  At the risk of putting too much on the table at once - there's that other nagging question related to the circuit that Harti encouraged us to use.  Which is the use of ONLY a continual negative current applied ONLY to the Gate of the MOSFET - when we also only used one switch.  Here there is no argument that the oscillation persists. 

Kindest again,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So.  Poynty, In SUMMATION

It is evident that there is no valid argument to dispute our measurements that also CONFORM to what our standard measurement protocols require.  The fact that I questioned a 'block circuit' is hardly justification to ignore our claim.  If the concern is that this may have INSULTED your intelligence - then it does not.  What is at question is whether or not you can upend our evidence or even our results.  Let me remind you.

We are able to power a circuit with no energy measured to have been delivered by an energy supply source.  As energy is applied during the brief on periods, and depending on the settings at the switch, that power can be high enough to take water to boil and - with a more robust transistors the evidence is that the circuit can also operate in booster converter mode.  This flies in the face of classical prediction and it entirely satisfies your criteria for consideration of your prize - offered for proof of over unity.

In which case we need to negotiate the venue in order to demonstrate this proof, which will be based on the measurement parameters that are outlined in the paper and that are further justified in this rather extensive dialogue between ourselves.

I await word and put it to you that should you refuse to engage - then there is an EXPLICIT acknowledgement of our Claim. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

edited
FOR EMPHASIS

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, may I add.  I have not heard from Professor E Jones.  He has expressed every interest to get this tested.  If he also does not engage - then presumably he also concedes defeat.  It could be that he's busy during the week.  In which case it's fair and reasonable to leave this open until Sunday.

And regarding Harti's interest.  We none of us have ANY INTENTION of claiming Harti's over unity prize.  This because his prize offer is motivated by a sincere effort to find proof of over unity.  I trust you see the distinction.  But we are more than willing to demonstrate our device to Harti - any time he wishes - preferably from here in SA.  This may satisfy him that Over Unity Breach is 'done and dusted'.  What's at issue now is to check how better to apply this than my own poor efforts.  And I KNOW that he and, indeed, all our experimenters here - would manage this better than me.  I would also add that it may now be as well to re-explore those prior claims by various members - that may have been disqualified in terms of Poyny's measurement analysis.  They're proven to be somewhat flawed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And while I'm at it.  Guys.  I know that the most of all readers and especially all experimenters in this field - are more interested in the electromagnetic interaction as it relates to motorised energy.  OF COURSE you are.  I've said it before.  It's a sexy application.  It's visually evident.  And, if you could get that motor running, forever, then WHO on God's earth - could argue? 

It is my opinion that actually, the excess, that energy that we access every time we put it to work - relies on a disturbance to the magnetic field.  Which essentially - in terms of the thesis - actually requires the release of heat.  This is always going to be the catalyst to work that energy.  And to access that heat - one way is through the Induction process.  But it is the HEAT itself that is required.  It needs an IMBALANCED or CHAOTIC magnetic field - before any work at all - can be released.  And we propose that in its chaotic condition then it is always measurable and quantifiable - as heat. 

Not sure that this is entirely understandable.  And I'm certainly not sure that this is correct.  But what I do know is that THIS ENTIRELY RESOLVES the question.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

This may explain it better.  The magnetic dipoles assemble in a field condition.  That's in line with Faraday's Lines of Force.  Out of that field condition they are in a transitional chaotic state.  That's when we can measure their heat - most grossly evident as 'flame'.  Then they decay back into their field condition.  That's when the heat dissipates.  And that decay is simply the result of their reassembly or restructuring back into the field condition.  That's when their orbital velocity exceeds light speed.  Which renders them invisible.  And then they're no longer interacting with the material in coalesced matter.  In a field condition they can only interact with those atoms' energy levels.  Which are also invisible magnetic fields.  Which also orbit at 2C.  Effectively the particle in the field is invisible.  Then it's in a structured field condition.  Out of the field condition they're visible.  Then they're simply in the process of getting back into their preferred field condition.  Which conforms PRECISELY to the properties required and attributed to DARK ENERGY FROM DARK MATTER.

In other words.  Every time we see a spark - then we are looking at the magnetic particle that is chaotic and manifest because it's outside it's preferred field condition. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I have just been cautioned that there are those who are still approaching members who posts on this thread - through the personal messages.  May I please ask you to ignore those advices or challenge them to make their opinion public.  This is an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.  And it is an abuse of that message system.

Kindest again,
Rosemary