another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

I am under NO obligation to provide anything to either of you short of what has already been provided.  What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.  In which case we qualify for your prize.  What we can CERTAINLY include in that demonstration - is the use of just one MOSFET without the application of a Function generator which we will demonstrate to produce that oscillation for the DURATION that a negative signal is applied to the gate of that transistor.

Dear Rosemary Ainslie,

I am under No obligation to afford you the OUR Award for which you have half-heartedly applied. Why? Your application does not meet the terms and conditions as outlined at OUR, nor does it provide convincing evidence of your claim. In fact, the evidence presented in the application supports the assertion that the measurements are erroneous.

Your circuit has been replicated with a computer simulation program called SPICE, for which it is impossible to obtain erroneous measurements of actual power used. Your measurement errors have been replicated in the program, and it has been explained in great detail how the measurement error was achieved. Furthermore, several measurements were given which support the fact that your measurement as submitted, exhibits not only the incorrect polarity, but incorrect amplitude as well.

Therefore, your persistence to demand award of any prize regarding your claim is simply futile. That you don't take to heart the damning evidence before you, is irrelevant; the circuit presented does NOT exhibit OU, nor COP=Infinity, nor any such notion....period!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

I am under No obligation to afford you the OUR Award for which you have half-heartedly applied. Why? Your application does not meet the terms and conditions as outlined at OUR, nor does it provide convincing evidence of your claim. In fact, the evidence presented in the application supports the assertion that the measurements are erroneous.

There are collaborators associated with this claim that are better qualified than you and who are entirely in support of the evidence detailed in those papers.  Your objections are based on spurious assumption and bad science.  I will take the trouble to schedule that sorry list in due course.  Meanwhile I put on record that there has not been one single explanation forwarded that warrants any kind of valid rejection of our applied measurement protocols.  I put it to you that you are relying this disgusting parade of arrogance to compensate for your entire lack of scientific justification.  It is a transparent attempt at bluffing your way out of a corner.  If there was an ounce of sincerity in your search for proof of over unity - then you needs must defer your 'opinion' until the completion of a demonstration.  Else it is not science.  It is assumption.

Your circuit has been replicated with a computer simulation program called SPICE, for which it is impossible to obtain erroneous measurements of actual power used. Your measurement errors have been replicated in the program, and it has been explained in great detail how the measurement error was achieved. Furthermore, several measurements were given which support the fact that your measurement as submitted, exhibits not only the incorrect polarity, but incorrect amplitude as well.

You presume that yours is the only extant analysis of a computer simulation.  In this you are GROSSLY mistaken.  And the results that have been found DO NOT CONFORM to those that you allege.  Quite apart from which - we are not under any obligation to conform to any experimental results that are based on simulations.  It is the hard experimental evidence that will trump a simulation EVERY TIME. You are transparently 'scraping the barrel' in a rather reckless attempt to avoid confirmation.  And this because you know - more than most - that we will, inevitably PROVE OUR CLAIM.

Regards,
Rosemary

And I would add that our measurements carry the full authority of calibrated measuring instruments that cannot be questioned.  And at no stage have there been any misrepresentations in any of our results.  We could not possibly misrepresent them.  We could NOT possibly tamper with the data that is extrapolated by those fine instruments. 

[poynt99]

Your claim will NEVER be proven, I can guarantee that.

Now, I challenge ANY or ALL of your so-called experts, academics, scientists, college students, or what-have-you, to join with me in ANY venue of their choice to discuss your/their claim.

I am most certain none will take up the challenge, OR they simply will not be aware of my offer. Could you please pass it along?

Thanks.

Kindest regards, as always,

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Your claim will NEVER be proven, I can guarantee that.

Now, I challenge ANY or ALL of your so-called experts, academics, scientists, college students, or what-have-you, to join with me in ANY venue of their choice to discuss your/their claim.

I am most certain none will take up the challenge, OR they simply will not be aware of my offer. Could you please pass it along?

Thanks.

Kindest regards, as always,
.99

I am reasonably satisfied that not one of them would want to engage in a discussion with you.  It seems that you and your 'friends' have aired your opinions about their involvement with the same liberality as you apply to me, - variously describing them as my 'lap puppies' and 'morons' I seem to recall were some of the description used.  Sad evidence of a rather infantile mindset which would hardly interest their engagement. If these forums were healthy and respectful and inclined to genuine research - then I'm sure that there would be absolutely NO reluctance.  As it is there is not a one of them who engages here.  And I'm satisfied that there is nothing to alter that decision.

All we require - at this stage of our 'discussion' is an acknowledgement that our measurement protocols are correct and sufficient for proof of our claim - with or without that second test with the single FET and no function generator.  There is nothing else to discuss.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Your claim will NEVER be proven, I can guarantee that.

With reference to this comment that our claim will NEVER be proven - it seems that if you are that satisfied then you would be most anxious to prove this in a demonstration of that test.  And I believe you've got your prize money staked on this.  We're rather anxious to separate you from that money Poynt.99.  You've been telling us all what we can and can't too for too long now - and with NO reference to the evidence that we've put on the table.

again,
Rosemary