another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Anyway - pressing on - as I'd like to wrap this up.

They, that is, those who are schooled in psyops go to unusual lengths to dispute claims which include the need to 'attack' the computer systems of the claimant - on a regular basis - to tap their telephone calls - to discourage all discussion by unwitting members with the claimant by 'off forum' or 'secret' communications - to interfere with any SKYPE conferences including but not limited to the pretense of writing in the name of one or other of those in conference and thereby soliciting information or dispensing misinformation - as required.  They will publish so called 'open discussions' in a hate blog but repeatedly and continually DELETE any submissions that protest this abuse.  They will ONLY tolerate claims that are marginal - badly measured - or where the claimant's continued protest would be deemed to be 'half mad'.  Itseug's efforts being a case in point.  They will confuse those less skilled members by a welter of inappropriate measurements and analyses that have NOTHING to do with science and even less to do with the experimental evidence.  And they will pretend to an authority that is PATENTLY not theirs to pretend.

And just for a moment, think for yourselves.  What in God's name have I EVER done that could justify all that apparent 'dislike'?  Are they mad?  Who, in their right minds, spends hours upon hours, scrutinising and monitoring contributions that they conform to the right level of abuse?  What self-respecting scientist would spend even ONE MOMENT on a claim or a claimant - where their claims was patently WRONG.  WHY BOTHER?  Why schedule a list of rather badly constructed speeches that indulge PURE HATRED and NO LOGIC in answer to my own small efforts in spreading the word?  The appropriate reaction is to ignore it.  Don't go there.  Don't read that link.  If it's nonsense - then?  It'll go nowhere. SO?  I ASK YOU?  WHAt is it that we are claiming that justifies this EXTRAORDINARY and CRIMINAL and UNPROFESSIONAL abuse?  Why this need - these motives - saturated with malice - to take my persona - which is perfectly ordinary and somewhat mediocre - and make me out to be something that I am NOT?  Because a small switching circuit shows results that don't conform to standard prediction?  Because that's all we're claiming.  I put it to you that it's a tad excessive. 

Under usual circumstances - related to a sincere evaluation of science - there would be every effort to replicate the result or to THOROUGHLY investigate the claim.  That's the promise of these forums.  That's why we claimants engage.  What they're doing is to find justification for their less than scientific response by attacking even the 'dress sense' of the claimant?  What the hell gives?  Well actually.  I know what.  I know exactly why our own small contribution to the over unity cause - is THAT significant - as it relates to the THESIS - that it has sparked a  REAL panic that they resort to this inappropriate and disproportionate abuse.

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And here's why they need to SILENCE me - or alternatively - DIMINISH BOTH ME AND OUR WORK.

To begin with - it's probably as well to explain a little about the history and also the extent of our claim itself.  It's a two part exercise - a two pronged approach - so to speak, beginning, as it does, with the thesis.  What this proposes is that magnetic fields comprise a fundamental particle that is INDESTRUCTIBLE.  In other words this field is structured from a whole lot of magnetic dipoles that move together as a field.  That's their 'immutable imperative', so to speak.  They always move to a condition of 'best charge balance'.  And their best 'balance' is in a complex field structured, as has been taught us - along Faraday's Lines of Force.   Now.  I won't go into the more complex aspects of this - that relate to composites of these particles forming the photon, the electron and the proton - and indeed the neutron.  Because that's required for the justification of the whole of the field.  And that's also outside the scope of most of your interests.

What's relevant to these tests is only this.  IF indeed, these magnetic fields comprise particles, and IF they are also the 'thing' that moves through our circuits as current flow, and IF in so doing they simply 'reassemble' those fields, then what?  Surely?  Theoretically it would then possible to RECYCLE - so to speak - that current flow, into perpetuity?  In other words, if current flow simply moves away and then back towards it's source potential difference (measured as voltage) - then what could it LOSE - in terms of it's material? Those indestructible little dipoles?  The thesis proposes that it loses NOTHING.  Not one part of those fields are ever entirely lost to that source.  The ONLY thing that is varied by that movement is its potential difference.  It proposes that this movement to and from it's source is to increase it's 'best charge balance' condition by reducing its voltage imbalance.  So.  The fields go back home.  They return to their opposite terminal.  But when they get there.  When they've completed that 'orbit' through circuit material - then they can reassemble themselves, through an interaction with the material at that source. This includes those acids or alkalines or whatever.  And that way they can manage to LOWER all that potential difference.  They achieve their 'best charge balance' in response to that 'immutable imperative'. Nothing's lost.  Unlike Elvis, NOTHING has 'left the building' - so to speak.

That was the purpose of that very first test.  Here's that argument.  If we can take a current - store some of through induction onto circuit components - and then return it back to the battery to recharge it - then we're 'forcing' that system into a perpetuated 'imbalanced' charge condition and it would keep those fields busy trying to discharge all that recharged potential difference.  And IF, in so doing, we were also able to measure some energy being dissipated at the load - and IF the sum of that energy dissipated exceeded the sum of wattage first delivered by that flow of current moving with the full force of all that voltage - then we'd PROVE OUR THESIS.

Which is what we did.  And what we MEASURED was a COP>17.  Now.  That's pretty extraordinary.  We tried very hard to get this to our local academics to evaluate the measured evidence.  But they - understandably - would have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.  We held a demonstration of this in the conference rooms of Coopers and Lybrand.  Two academics attended that demonstration - SAW the measurements - and, a certain Professor Green - now retired - stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that, notwithstanding there's PROBABLY a measurement error.  And forever thereafter he REFUSED to evaluate that circuit apparatus - or do his own experiments.  IT WAS DISMISSED.  Rather in the way that Poynty et al are trying to DISMISS the evidence.

It is very important to them that this proposal of a particle in a magnetic field - DOES NOT GAIN TRACTION.  Because that concept would put paid to every outstanding paradox in our standard model.  And it would then put paid to the continued need for our fossil or nuclear fuel to power our rather extensive energy needs.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

[The Boss]

 
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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

Hopefully this post should wrap things up.

The one thing that is MOST IMPORTANT to acknowledge - is that unity is a barrier that has been well and truly breached.  And the evidence is absolutely NOT exclusively with any of the experimental evidence that we, on this forum, have brought to the table.  The argument has been settled by Andrea Rossi and his E-cat.  Here's why.  While the evidence speaks to a nuclear reaction it cannot be supported by what is understood within the standard model.  There is absolutely no complete explanation that will allow for this.  Which also means that we will need to revisit our conceptual understanding related to the transfer of energy.  I am of the opinion that the final explanation will be entirely resolved in Andrea Rossi's own description of the E-cat - being 'a new kind of fire'.  And my own proposal, for what it's worth, is that this fire is, as is all fire, generated from magnetic particles that are chaotic.  The proposal, very loosely, is that in their structured or 'field' condition - then they structure themselves along Faraday's Lines of Force.  Out of the field condition they simply become chaotic.  Then they are 'big' and 'hot' and 'localised' within our own measurable time frame and within our own spatial dimensions.  These particles are indestructible and we argue that composites of these particles create a 10 dimensional binary system that is in line with our String Theories.

Now.  Discursive analysis is a valid tool of logic.  When it comes to the careful analysis of science theory - then it can be used to argue concepts.   And, at this stage, and because of the elusive nature of dark matter, it is actually all that we've got.  What I am trying to point to is that the time has now come when we need to establish some new paradigms that are bold enough to encompass a 'field theory' as required by our string theorists.  The reluctance to engage is, I suspect, because they use a kind of math that is bewildering even to expert mathematicians.  And that puts any speculative efforts out of reach of the expert let alone the layman. 

I have been to some considerable pains to assure you that credentials are NOT required to apply logic.  And logic is always and essentially simple.  It's our birthright - for God's sake.  And, if I have a mission, it is to share these insights - that we can ALL of us both understand that background field, and then USE IT.  To far better effect than even Rossi's E-cat.  Rossi's breakthrough technology will, I'm CERTAIN, salvage us from the onslaught that we're doomed to experience if we allowed the continuing abuses of our toxic energy excesses.  That thing that our well fed trolls rather frantically require.  It's a PERFECT interim measure.  But it's only touching on the fringe of all that potential that sits there - for the taking.  And I hope, before I die, that I'll be able to share these insights - with more than just the dozen or so, who, at the moment DO understand it.  And guys.  IT IS NOT MY DISCOVERY.  It has NOTHING to do with anything at all that I've initiated.  It is just that I have the rare privilege of understanding this in a conceptual context - which, I modestly believe, is within the grasp of EVERYONE.  And it really needs to be shared.

The ONLY reason that I took this departure from my usual - was to FINALLY challenge those trolls who lurk under the guise of 'reason' and 'credentialed expertise' to show you how they are FRUSTRATING and not ADVANCING new science.  And they're doing this through increasingly inappropriate methods that are now, simply backfiring.  Their motives are increasingly transparent.  And their deceptions along with it.  It is they and not US who are not only misrepresenting the FACTS - but are applying methodologies of analysis that contravene our established knowledge related to physics.  That's the irony.  They are literally contravening the established science in order to contradict the evidence.  And they DO THIS REPEATEDLY.  There is NOT ONE RELIABLE COMPUTATION ON THIS FORUM THAT HAS EVER BEEN MANAGED BY POYNTY, PROFESSOR STEVEN E JONES, TINSEL KOALA - OR ANY OF THEM.   And, frankly, I've had a belly full.

But to get back to the point.  That challenge.  That need to DO the experiment to DISPROVE our thermodynamic constraints.  That, I believe, is your own intuitive response to a deeper understanding that these BOUNDARIES CAN BE BROKEN.  And that knowledge needs to surface.  But it would - perhaps, be more efficiently used and employed - if there was a conceptual understanding to advance this in the first place.  In any event.  I do hope so.  In order to make a start I'm going to post over the discursive analysis in our own paper.  But I'm not sure that I want to do it in this thread.  I've asked Harti to lock this thread.  I'm not sure if he will as he hasn't answered me. In which case I'll post it over in another thread - in due course.  But I really think that this thread is otherwise and now, and COMPLETELY - DONE.  I do hope so.  Thanks for your patience - to all those who followed this - from both sides of the argument.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary