another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again, Derrick,

You seem upset that I published MY message?  Had I published yours then it would have made sense.  Anyway,..

... I believe that these other posts here matter just as much (except Replaced LMAO!!), some a lot more. Have you seen the videos mentioned? DID you read the PDF about the scope?

No.  Can't recall any references other than by TK.  And I don't even read his posts any more.  All others I read avidly.

yet you argue like you are the only one (on this forum anyways) who can understand your circuit... It seems there are a couple individuals here (to me at least!!) who understand the principles of your 'circuit' better than you do.

It is my humble opinion, that the ONLY people who still regularly contribute here and who also understand that circuit - are Gravock,  Gyula and AbbaRue.  And, with the exception of AbbaRue - and notwithstanding - they also missed the significance of that 'source leg of Q2' being a required path for the flow of current.  If you're relying on the advices of our dear Poynty Point and MilesEverSo, then you'll forever be at the wrong party.  Their commitment to DISCOUNTING our evidence based on no reason at all - other than denial.  And right now it's because my math 'errored'.  Nothing new.  I can barely manage to add up my own age.  Which is precisely why I leave these details to my collaborators when we write those papers.  BUT having said that, you must appreciate that it is nowhere near as 'faulted' as Poynty's math when it comes to counting the hit rate of this thread.  Nor is it as critical as Poynty's reliance on the battery discharging a negative current flow. And for the life of I see no objections from any of his 'friends' on these issues.  If I must commit 'ritual suicide' by virtue of what's tantamount to a poor mathematics then I'm in good company with some highly respected physicists who also never mastered the art.  Including I might add, both Einstein and Faraday.  And then too, by now - our Poynty Point would have  had to set us all an example.  He's butchered the fundamentals of physics. I've only erred in the application of a sum.  Why has he not committed Hara-kiri?

Why are you trying to argue these things when you're obviously, (admittedly!) out of your depth? Simple calculation errors and suddenly there are millions of joules floating around that are 'Dark Energy'?? A negative reading on a scope and it becomes 'Dark Energy'? Better start pumping that stuff out of the hold, your circuit is starting to sink... Sorry (mostly). Sarcasm comes easily when I'm low on caffeine. Your reluctance to explore other reasons for your 'oscillations' still leaves me scratching my head...

Again.  There have been no reasons 'explored' - not on this thread.  They've only been denied.  And as I've mentioned.  DENIAL is not an argument.

I'm looking forward to the NEW math BTW...

Me too.  Hopefully there is someone out there who can make sense of that negative wattage.  And lest you think this is also 'bad math' then rest happy.  This is the math that not only I have found, but so have our collaborators, those many witnesses to these results -  AND MUCH MORE TO THE POYNT - they've also been validated by our beautiful little LeCroy.  It manages those sums with remarkable aplomb.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then please DO indulge us. I am QUITE CERTAIN all 3 readers here would very much like to see this clearly demonstrated in a video. Only caveat is, it MUST be performed on the actual apparatus referenced in the paper and used in the video. Otherwise, it's simply not valid.

Dear Poynty Point,
I most certainly will NOT present this in video form - until I can be satisfied that a mere video has ever answered anyone's concerns related to over unity anywhere on these forums - or even anywhere on the INTERNET.  HOWEVER.  IF a video will satisfy you that we qualify for your PRIZE - then I'll undertake to do this WITH PLEASURE.  But I am NOT about to apply that to our circuit.  The positioning of another load in series with a diode - will most certainly block that oscillation - which is what you're relying on.  But it can be managed on a simple 12 volt battery supply with diodes in place of the load.  All else being equal.  Therefore the principle stands.  And you would most certainly NOT be able to explain the one rail that is continually alight.  Certainly not within the context of standard predictions.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Well, there you have it. Rosemary defends her math as being verified by her collaborators and her oscilloscope. Yet we haven't seen a single person posting a defense or explanation of her calculations.

Her claims of excess energy and battery recharging are based on calculations like those she's posted above which I have analyzed, which she defends as correct, even when her errors are pointed out. Her claims ARE THEREFORE INVALID.

I tell you all this: until Rosemary can show that she understands HOW and WHY her calculations above are incorrect, and she acknowledges her error and retracts her claim that her data show excess energy, you will never be able to test her circuit--- because she'll say that your test data support her, since she can calculate differently than you will do, and since she doesn't understand how she is wrong.

ROSEMARY's ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON WRONG MATH. THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT FOR HER CLAIMS because her MATH IS WRONG.

ROSEMARY.... where is Doctor Stephen Jones? Where are your other "collaborators" to defend your calculations?


WHAT MAKES YOU THINK 1 JOULE = 1 WATT PER SECOND


Come on, let's say it together: A Watt is a RATE of one Joule PER Second. A Joule is a quantity, a Watt is a rate at which that quantity is dissipated or "used" for work.

Say it, Rosemary: "The calculations posted are wrong, I understand why, and here's the correction, and I admit that this is MUCH less than the battery's original capacity, so much less in fact that 10 or more identical tests could be performed without substantially drawing down the batteries." 

You must ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG about this point, otherwise we will not be able to make any progress.  It's undeniable that your calculations are wrong: we have them above in your own post, at least until you delete them.

I can barely manage to add up my own age.

And yet you are making a claim that depends on your "addition" of quantities you don't understand and which are applied incorrectly.... and you have tried to build an entire set of claims thereon. And when those who CAN add up "your age" point out your errors, you willfully ignore them and proceed merrily down your path full of error. You are pathetic.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

If history is anything to go by - then we're seeing the 'flaming' of this thread which is it's inevitable consequence.  A few more days and this thread will likely be locked.  It has happened so many times in the past that I've lost count.  Certainly not less than 6 times.  The point is this. 

We have undeniable evidence that we can do without the battery supply and simply access it's potential difference - to enhance efficiencies to a value that far exceeds Kirchhoff's unity requirements.  Now.  One of the distinct advantages of a forum over a blog - is that, provided it is reasonably representative of a wide and critical audience - then there will be ample scope to develop the arguments and the evidence - to come to some conclusions related to that evidence.  This is entirely WHOLESOME.  And much to be desired.  However, when it comes to clear evidence of over unity - then because of the preposterous nature of the claim - it generates extreme polarisation of that opinion - and the arguments thereby become somewhat fraught.

One aspect of all such forum 'discussions' which is a euphemism as it's applied in the context of Poynty's input - is that sooner or later the 'agenda' or the 'bias' of the posters is easily shown and reasonably easily assessed.  My objective here was and is DECIDEDLY confrontational and deliberately aimed at aggravating the extreme polarisation related to these claims.  We claim an 'over unity' to the extent that we have - undeniably INFINITE COP.  But the truth of the matter is this.  Even I know that this number is not correct.  We are applying measurements that are based on a one sided argument.  We are ONLY looking at the energy that is supplied by the battery supply source.  IF we were to factor in the concept that back, or counter electromotive force actually is RE-GENERATIVE - then what we actually need to factor in is the other side of that argument.  We need to establish the principle that the circuit components themselves - are capable of generating energy.  Which is absolutely in line with standard Inductive Laws.  Not only this - but it appears that our simulation software also accepts this principle.  Because also, we have substantial evidence of this in simulated programs.  And, unarguably, Poynty's own simulations show that same negative wattage.  And negative wattage - if it means anything at all - is ONLY possible if there is, indeed, an alternate energy supply.

Now.  The relevance to all this, and why I'm anxious to get this to the academic forum - as opposed to this or any other forum dedicated to over unity research - is precisely because what goes on here DOES NOT REALLY COUNT.  It counts - as far as it may or may not persuade our readers that over unity is possible.  But it does not PROMOTE over unity.  For that one needs our academics. And until this is put to that elusive table that sits so high inside those ivory towers - then there is absolutely not value in any new findings at all.  And here we have a problem.  IF an academic were to be so reckless as to come forward with open support - then his reputation will be blasted - amongst his peers.  And that's his livelihood.  They may not consider any proposals until such proposals have been published in a reviewed journal.  Which is where we're at.  We're waiting for that publication. 

Meanwhile - I took this departure - simply because there is an element in these forums that is intentionally aimed at DISCOUNTING any over unity evidence.  All is tolerated - provided only that the proof is slight - or disputable - or eccentrically rather than reasonably argued.  And there is unarguably an agenda associated with this.  And proof of this agenda is the extent to which the contenders 'talk' to each other off forum and at length.  They strategise their counter attack - and they work in 'packs'.  They post TIRELESSLY.  And when they find proof - then they deny this on grounds of being 'too small' to exceed error margins - or they simply drown out the evidence in utterly unscientific analysis CONFUSED in inappropriate and undefined ACRONYMS - with ambivalent answers - at best.  And the sad truth is that many of our forum members DEFER to that analysis - assuming that it's both 'academic' and 'official'.  Trust me on this.  If science is not clear - then it is not even science. 

I'm ending this post here because I personally find it uncomfortable to have to scroll past a page.  And I've reached that limit.  I'll continue this argument on another post.

R


   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...
It is my contention that proof of over unity ABOUNDS in these forums.  Evidence is everywhere.  But those that present it do so in the rather reckless hope that it will be accepted.  It won't be.  NOT EVER.  That's the beauty of those 'trolls'.  Their mandate is to deny ALL.  They may pretend to an early acceptance.  They may even pretend to reasonably evaluate the evidence.  But they will NEVER accept it.  Else they'd lose their jobs.

Back to our own claim.  Here they have greater difficulty because the proof of it no longer depends on their own sums.  Our own analyses have been based on the protocols that were FIRST defined by our academics themselves.  Now.  I've been at this for many years.  And since the news of this has reached the forums - now into it's 3rd year - we've delivered proof of energy that exceeds COP>17.  But interestingly - since all else will likely FAIL - then their stategised approach is this.  'Discount anything that Rosemary advances - based on her stupidity - want of schooling - age - mendacity - looks - dress sense - anything that springs to mind.  AND DON'T HOLD BACK.'  Which is what you're witnessing.  And there is no defense against that attack.  For reasons best understood by our 'trolls' - there is no reason to justify their own errors of assumption related to these tests.  It is only important to FIND SOMETHING - ANYTHING AT ALL - and make that the theme of DISMISSAL.  That way they can reject the paper that explains the claim - without EVER LOOKING AT THE EXTENT OF THAT CLAIM.

And here's what that claim actually points to.  Which is what needs to be salvaged - not here - but by our academics.  And I am well aware of the fact that there are more than a few such who read this thread.  It has the evidence - as do all over unity claims - that there is a hidden force that has NOT been accommodated in our paradigms related to the transfer of energy.  And our proposal - which is NOT a first - is that this is in the material of coalesced matter.  IF this is true - then our string theorists are ON THE MONEY.  Because that also means that we have a complete unifying principle that will resolve the decades of dichotomies between our quantum and classical thinkers.  AND more to the point.  We will then be able to access an energy supply that will more than satisfy our rampant requirements.  Without the risk of polluting our poor planet.  And why this needs to be discounted - on any grounds at all - is precisely because such knowledge will challenge the stranglehold on our energy that is enjoyed by our monopolists. 

Fortunately our evidence is not that critical.  Not now that Rossi's technology is being developed and soon to come on stream.  But the principles that are exposed by Rossi - are PRECISELY the principles that we're trying our best to advance.  And this will, eventually, be required.


R