another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The address to the blog that Rosemary is imploring you not to read is:

http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html

The Boss

At last.  And to think I nearly missed this.  And hello to you too.   I most certainly am NOT imploring anyone to avoid reading your blog.  I LOVE it.  It's richly entertaining.  Where have you misconstrued this?  I've taken the trouble to post links to it - early in this thread.  It is an enduring tribute to the mindless obsessions that you're all afflicted with.  It's rich with comedy.  And I love comedy.  I read it avidly, DAILY.

I only mentioned, in passing, that the degree of malice that leaks out all over the place, is somewhat disproportionate when you consider that I'm only a rather old lady afflicted with insufficient schooling and a heavily challenged intellect.  If we didn't know better we'd be inclined to assume that what I write actually MATTERS.  Which I'm sure is NOT your intention.  But that's the hell of it.  The more you write about me, the more people will read about me. And the most of them are certainly NOT inclined to be taken in by your rather UNPROFESSIONAL and INTEMPERATE display of  traducement and slander.  There are 'thinking' readers who are also increasingly aware of your agenda.  And I see that the crisis ESCALATES.  All this good news about the E-cat.  It must be KILLING you.  Every now and again one of your employees tries to throw some mud in that general direction.  But they're not managing a good argument.  The best was from Professor Steven E Jones, who recommended that we ignore those results because Rossi wouldn't engage in a discussion with him?   That reason lacks a certain strength.

Anyway.  Just to let you know.  I'm enormously flattered at the continued interest in my work - albeit that you don't seem to entirely approve of my efforts.  And I'm enormously grateful that there is that blog at all.  Else how could I justify my claim that you poor trolls are not only cowardly criminals  - who hide behind the security of your anonymity - but that you indulge in a level of discussion that is less than intelligent.  Your blog is all that I need by way of example.  And in as much as it's a running commentary on everything that I write - then it's a kind of 'endorsement' - albeit not always that flattering.  Great fun though. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
By the way

Just as an aside (JAAA)  I do hope I haven't missed any other of your posts.  I LOVE this kind of engagement.  It reminds me to remind everyone that - albeit just on the internet - you actually do have an existence.  Which also means that there are people out there who are really, REALLY worried about our claim.  Otherwise, I'm reasonably satisfied that you'd have lost interest in my ramblings - some time back.  I would have thought?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, I'm busy downloading the most of this thread to my blogspot - and have just seen that my confusions related to this post were that I assumed that he was asking me to argue this in terms his own rather pretentious little 'paper' as he calls it.  Such a PERFECT example of all that BOMBAST and his own CONFUSED SCIENCE ACCORDING TO POYNTY POINT - and, even more to the point, NOTA BENE.  He is stipulating the CONDITIONS to that award.  I'll comment as required. 

The essential message is this:

You will note the word 'ESSENTIAL".    Loaded with importance.  Golly.

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you

THERE IT IS GUYS.  A NEW and entirely unrelated condition required for his prize - that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  What, in essence he is now negotiating is this.  IF is pass this test, and IF I show some basic understanding of a rather elementary question related to equally elementary power analysis - THEN ONLY WILL HE CONSIDER ALLOWING ME TO DEMONSTRATE OUR DEVICE.  The kindest thing to say about this is that it represents a GROSS VIOLATION OF HIS OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATED TO CLAIMING HIS PRIZE.  Not only is it an arbitrary GROSSLY IRRELEVANT condition - BUT IT ALSO calls to question the competence of those of us who wrote that paper which, AT BEST, is SLANDEROUS.

That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY.

AND THEN THIS.  Note - again.   I need to show that I understand the polarity of the power assigned to the battery?  whatever that means, as it CONFLICTS WITH THE VOLAGE that's DROPPED over LOAD - whatever that means, and then he demands to know 'WHY'? 

Which all is closely followed by this  rather pompous piece of work where he says ...

I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense.

which means that I MAY NOT REFERENCE A SWITCHED CIRCUIT IN MY REPLY. 

And then this.....

If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.

He DEMANDS THAT I SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY?  And this from a man who is trying to advance that voltage is 'dropped' across the load resistor - as a result of current flow from the battery supply - which is then also consistent with the polarity of THAT LOAD RESISTOR's VOLTAGE?  THIS IS ABSOLUTE UNADULTERATED AND ENDURING CLAPTRAP.  It is PROFOUNDLY wrong.  It is to science - what the SPANISH INQUISITION WAS to REASON and EVIDENCE.  Which, AT BEST, is an abuse of all good sense and violation of all good science.  WHY DO YOU GUYS NOT SEE THIS?  WHERE ARE YOU BUBBA?  GRAVITYBLOCK? - SCHUBERT? .... - EVERYONE?  Is Poynty allowed to indulge these eccentric philosophies in the adjudication of any claim for prize?  I guess so.  Because it is, AFTER ALL, his prize.  LOL.  What a JOKE

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory and power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.

And then this.  Rather conveniently - this CRITERIA is now applied to my collaborators.  We're all expected to RALLY and apply this extraordinary abuse to standard measurement protocols in order to first QUALIFY for a DISCUSSION of our results.  We must first conform to Poynty Point's eccentric mathematics and quixotic physics - UPEND known protocols as forged by our Greats and as applied by the entire scientific fraterntiy - and apply a variation which will ENSURE that not we, nor anyone ever again, in immediate or distant future - QUALIFY for their prize.  And that way.  It's a BREEZE.  NO-ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO CLAIM OVER UNITY.  LOL.

And then all this is followed with the earnest proposal that the amount of energy delivered b the battery supply is a NEGATIVE wattage.  And the amount of energy dissipated at the load is a POSITIVE wattage.  Actually he may have claimed it the other way around.  Either way.  It's just so WRONG that it's LAUGHABLE.  WELL.  I PUT IT TO YOU ALL that if this is what you members, here or on Poynty's forum see as being a valid scientific proposal - then these FORUMS are REALLY on a HIDING TO HELL.  And then.  God help us all.

From this point onwards - and UNLESS this is addressed - then there is clear evidence that not only are the members of his forum ENTIRELY DISQUALIFIED FROM ANY FURTHER COMMENT RELATED TO POWER MEASUREMENT - but that - for some reason - THERE IS THE IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT to apply utterly faulted measurements to the analysis of power.  Which means that they are - all of them - either UNABLE TO DO POWER ANALYSIS - or they are COMPLICIT in their requirement to DENY OUR EVIDENCE ON ANY ILLOGICAL, UNFOUNDED AND UNSCIENTIFIC BASES - AS REQUIRED. 

And MileHigh and Poynty SERIOUSLY propose that the readers here 'side' with Poynty Point and all this absurdity?  WHAT A JOKE.

I PUT IT TO YOU POYNTY POINT and to all those who ENDORSE THIS COMPUTATION INCLUDING AS IT SEEMS ALL THE MEMBERS ON POYNTY'S FORUM.  The correct evaluation of that circuit is 250 watts delivered by the battery  250 watts dissipated at the resistor.  And NEITHER NUMBER CARRY ANY NEGATIVE POLARITY AT ALL.  And IF you try and argue this - then go and argue it with the Professors at Harvard who write your text books.  They'll put you right.

R (regards)
R (rosie pose)

Much editing for emphasis - mainly.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I'm reposting this - for PERFECT CLARITY.  AT THIS STAGE WE ONLY HAD EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF a coefficient of performance (COP)>17 AND WE NOW HAVE MEASURED AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF INFINITE COP

My dear MileHigh,

....IF
we made any errors in our previous 'first generation' - so to speak, tests, then that error was shared by top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES - all of whom were directly involved in experimentation.

I left out another possibility.

IF I was lying about this prior involvement - and AS this allegation of their involvement has been so WIDELY advertised on the internet - then I would, by now, have been in receipt of written notification from all those companies to RETRACT these statements - or I'd be facing a damages claim that would impoverish me together with a criminal action that I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND.

I am NOT THAT RECKLESS. I am not MISREPRESENTING anything.  That's yours and Poynty Point's particular speciality together with a host of others who NEED, most urgently, to cast doubt on these facts.

Again, kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

I've removed the most of this post to use later.

added the fact that we now have measured evidence of an infinite co-efficient of performance.  And I highlighted it in Red - to emphasise this.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, your last posts demonstrate that you STILL do not understand the difference between power and energy. After all this time, that's really sad. I challenge you YET AGAIN to measure my TinselKoil in exactly the same way that you measure your circuit and see what you come up with.

And I see that you are still making claims about " top scientists at ABB Research, NC, SASOL, BP, and SPESCOM POWER ENEGINEERS (part of the ALSTOM group) among others and including - and in no way limited by the experts in MANY SMALLER COMPANIES " -- claims that you have never been able to substantiate. I'll remind you and your readers that some of these companies have been contacted in the past couple years concerning your claims... and they never heard of you. Let's see your documentation of these supposed tests. If your invention is so great and was confirmed by all these power engineering companies...... why aren't they using your invention? Oh... wait..... your "invention" isn't an invention at all.... it's just a simple mosfet switching circuit, naively cobbled together and incompetently measured, and does nothing of interest to real engineers at all.

You have had ample opportunity over the years to produce documentation of the testing you refer to above... but you can't, because it doesn't exist.

[TinselKoala]

http://www.isotest.es/web/Soporte/Formacion/Notas%20de%20aplicacion/TEKTRONIX/DPO4000/MEDIDAS%20EN%20POWER%20SUPPLY%20DPO4000.pdf

Did the information in this publication help you, Rosemary? Do you even understand the issues?