another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

May I add - that these malicious efforts of yours speak for themselves.  It is INAPPROPRIATE Poynt.99 Recurring.  Utterly and completely inappropriate.  For some reason you aren't aware of this.  You seem to think that you lend credence to your damning assessment of my abilities - by simply spreading your opinion - like a kind of contagious disease.  The public are considerably more discerning.  And while you so urgently need to advise all and sundry that I'm rather ignorant and decidedly intellectually challenged - there is that in our work that belies this.  Which you know only too well.  All the more reason NOT to address the FACTS in that paper - but to try and keep the attention focused on your OPINIONS related to tests that you have NEVER DONE.

Extraordinary.  It's a crass stupidity to assume that public opinion can be manipulated.  It's that thing about the con artist.  You can fool some of the people some of the time - and so on.  But NOT ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.  And that time has now come Poynty Point.  Long over due.  But you'll need to work hard to deny the claims in that paper.  I'm sure it'll challenge your best efforts.  But LET'S SEE THEM.  Don't duck behind that ABSURD sense of moral indignation.  You really DO NOT OCCUPY THE MORAL HIGH GROUND HERE.  Just DEAL WITH THOSE CLAIMS AND THE THESIS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS.  JUST KEEP TO THE POYNT.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

I see my previous challenge has STILL not solicited an appropriate response.  Dear Poynty Point.  Kindly evaluate our paper that deals with the experimental evidence of over unity.  IF YOU FIND ANYTHING AT ALL THAT MAY BE WRONG - THEN LET US KNOW.  THEN.  When we've established the protocols related to these measurements as required - we'll be in some position to evaluate those results.

THEN.  We would be glad to orchestrate some means by which you can attend a demonstration of the working device to evaluate our claim as it relates to those results.

DO LET US KNOW.  Unless you're prepared to acknowledge that your rather well flaunted opinion about me somehow disqualifies me and my collaborators from challenging you for your prize.  Which is hardly science.  That's more in the nature of a witch hunt.  May I remind you - that while I, myself, am not credentialed - those collaborators - to a man - are very well qualified - one having an honours degree and the other a masters degree.  And they ALL concur that those results are as detailed in those papers.  It's NOT exclusively my claim.  It is a collaborative effort.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

I see my previous challenge has STILL not solicited an appropriate response.  Dear Poynty Point.  Kindly evaluate our paper that deals with the experimental evidence of over unity.  IF YOU FIND ANYTHING AT ALL THAT MAY BE WRONG - THEN LET US KNOW.

Dear three readers of this thread,

Kindly take Rosemary by the hand and please explain to her that all the answers she seeks regarding the problems in her paper and experimental results can be found in this document.

Thank you.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear three readers of this thread,

Kindly take Rosemary by the hand and please explain to her that all the answers she seeks regarding the problems in her paper and experimental results can be found in this document.

Thank you.

.99

Golly Ponty.  You really need to brush up on your math.  Check with Harti.  I think there are well in excess of 800 hits per day here.  As ever, you're clearly hoping against hope that no-one finds this subject intriguing.  And that rather half starved little hope is kept alive, because you're also hoping that no-one will discover you're duplicitous intentions regarding that prize you offer. 

I'm afraid that - unless you allow our challenge for this then there is the very real likelihood that you'll lose all credibility as a 'promoter of clean green' - alternate energy - or even over unity.  And certainly no-one is likely to trust your intentions on this subject again.  They may conclude that you're actively working against any proofs of this.  AND.  That would be a shame.  It would likely wreck any residual credibility and with it - any residual respect that they may have for you.

Now.  Since you're patently reluctant to make public those 'objections' of yours as they relate to our tests - let me HIGHLIGHT the more exotic of those sad little arguments.  Starting with the POSITION OF THE PROBE.    There is NO QUESTION that if, INDEED, we reversed our probe positions - then we would measure 'under unity'.  The problem, unfortunately, is that it would be INCORRECT to do so.  You see this I trust. Science has well established protocols as to where the probes must be positioned.  You cannot whimsically propose to vary this, in the same way as you whimsically vary the very terms of power analysis in that PIN POUT nonsense.  There are already established protocols.  And they've been implemented by far better minds than either you or I can bring to the table. 

I would strongly recommend that you simply stick to  - adhere to - in fact, 'cling onto for dear life' - the already well established conventions when it comes to the assessment of power.  Golly.  Else we could allow every Tom, Dick or Poynty - to determine the very basis of physics when they have, very evidentially, very little knowledge of it.  And on these forums Poynty Point?  I would suggest that you've been going off at a tangent - which explains that curious 'avatar' of yours.  I just do not understand how you've got away with it for so long.  Why it is that no-one has challenged you on this?  Because to any academic or qualified engineer - it is - at best, confused - utterly illogical - and shows a remarkable level of ignorance about the fundamental principles related to the computation of power.  But - you are nevertheless CORRECT.  If we were to reverse those probes - then we WOULD INDEED - reverse our results. 

Now.  Here's what I propose.  Spare us the public evaluation of your power analysis - based as it is on those utterly illogical arguments - and SIMPLY EVALUATE THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS APPLIED.  Then move on from there.  It would have the very real merit of being appropriate.  You see this I trust.  It's OUR claim that needs to be evaluated.  NOT YOURS.  And we are best qualified to represent our own argument. Unlike you - our collaborators are well versed in power analysis.  And, also unlike you, they are far better qualified.  I am, therefore, inclined to rest on their advices, and on the advices of some renowned academics - when it comes to an evaluation of power.  It's not exactly an 'art in the making'.  It's well established.  Well known.  And ENTIRELY LOGICAL.  I'm not sure that you're qualified to simply recommend that we turn the measurement of electric energy upside down.

NOW.  I appreciate that you DARE not expose the grounds for your objections to our claim.  it would require an exposure of your rather quixotic arguments.  But here's a way around the impasse.  Just move on to our own arguments that form the basis of our claim for that prize.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  Changed 'of' to 'on'.

[powercat]

 You must have missed my post, not surprising with your track record on interpretation of information, so here it is again

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