another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, just to remind you all.  This is Mags' proposal for a DEFINITIVE TEST.

Was thinking   

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.     
Seems fair enough.

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here's the list of caveats to doing that test.

Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.    Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.


I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And here's WHY those caveats are required.

Dear Magsy,

You're on the money.  As ever.  NOW.  That argument is PRECISELY the argument that BP used when they evaluated our circuit.  We had to do these tests over days and weeks where we tested one against the other in a series of tests that were designed to give UNEQUIVOCAL RESULTS.  We included those EXACT PARAMETERS.  We checked voltage drops against a control.  Exactly as you've suggested.  We even did that exact comparison in those tests that we published in Quantum.  Over a 17 hour test duration we found that the control was flat when our circuit batteries had barely discharged a fraction of a volt.   A Professor Jandrell at WITS university - reviewed that paper.  IN HIS WISDOM he REFUSED TO LET US PUBLISH THOSE SCHEDULES.  For the first time in HISTORY an academic required that we DECREASE the data forwarded as evidence rather than ADD to it.  Which may or may not be construed as a deliberate attempt to diminish that evidence.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  Our academics are no fools.  IF INDEED - the argument hinged on the evidence against an ACTUAL APPLICATION - and if that evidence related to an EVALUATION OF THE CHEMISTRY OF THOSE BATTERIES - which is begged by that argument - then HIS OBJECTIONS ARE VALID.  And our academics know better than pose an objection if it is NOT first VALID - ON WHATEVER GROUNDS.

SO.  The irony is this.  Since that event - then the entire THRUST of all objections to our claim is this - LET IT RUN.  Just run it for as long as required and then come back - in a year or two and represent that CLAIM.  I am on RECORD.  It is entirely UNREASONABLE TO SIMPLY RUN OUR OWN CIRCUIT AND GAUGE BATTERY DRAW DOWNS.  THERE ARE NONE.  CONVERSELY.  It is entirely REASONABLE to simply run our own circuit against a control and COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE.  That's definitely DOABLE.  But it will involve me in an ENORMOUS amount of time, and even the expenditure of some money.  Because those tests need close monitoring.  And I am NOT about to let those switches 'do their thing' without monitoring.  I've seen that off set button default - at arbitrary moments in our experiments - that it can feed enough energy though the system to NUKE that circuit apparatus.  It's too risky to leave it unattended.

HOWEVER.  I will GLADLY do this test.  PROVIDED ONLY that this then carries the written endorsement of qualified academics that this will represent unequivocal proof of our argument.  Otherwise - where I may satisfy your own criteria - or those of you who depend on this argument - we'll still be left WITHOUT ACADEMIC ENDORSEMENT.  They can still come back and say - 'SO WHAT.  You've omitted a detailed account of the chemical interaction of the batteries that chemical interaction may, indeed, fully ACCOUNT FOR THAT ANOMALY'.

I'm not about to be bitten twice.  It's NOT an easy test to set up - believe it or not.  And it is NOT easy to monitor.  And it certainly is NOT an option unless there is a WIDE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS THEN UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF.  I'm not about to waste my time - yet again.  Get me a couple of academics who will go on record stating that this is ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR PROOF.  AND I'LL DO THAT TEST.  WITH PLEASURE.

But I absolutely agree with you Mags.  I KNOW that the test that you propose here is CONCLUSIVE.  It's getting our academics to acknowledge this that matters.  I would LOVE it if all our members here simply did these tests for themselves, looked at that oscillation - and puzzled out it's existence at all - in the light of a disconnected battery supply.  But I'm REALLY only interested in convincing our academics.  Because - in the final analysis - if they are NOT convinced by experimental evidence then this and any other over unity claims are dead at birth.  Still born.  Aborted. 

Kindest and best and thanks for reminding me about this argument.
Rosie

[poynt99]

Was thinking   

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.     
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the DEFINITIVE test I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the one I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99

it seems, Poynty Point that your talents at misinformation are bottomless.  And your grasp of history is more pragmatic than accurate.  I AM ON RECORD.  I HAVE NOT REFUSED IT.  I HAVE REPEATEDLY OFFERED IT ON OUR PREVIOUS LOCKED THREADS WITH PRECISELY THE SAME CONDITIONS AND FOR PRECISELY THE SAME REASONS. 

And I am not about to go into an explanation as to why that test you propose is RIDICULOUSLY INEFFECTIVE.  It speaks for itself.  Just another reckless attempt at misguiding all and sundry. 

Regards,
Rosemary