another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Just a small diversion here guys.

I'm concerned that IF these comments are left 'unanswered' then there's an outside chance that my dedicated 'hate blog' may be taken seriously.  God forbid.  Here's what Poynty posted there today.

Shes asked me to engage in a debate to refute her claims, then when I post a poll asking her audience of 3 what I should do, she backsteps. So, I guess she will rant on and on to herself for a while.

I'm not sure that I ever asked you to engage in a debate.  On the contrary.  Some time back I asked that you EXPLAIN on what grounds you rejected our claim for your over unity prize.  Golly In any event.  My dear Poynty - ever recurring - PLEASE.  'SPEAK UP'.  DO YOUR THING.  Whatever 'floats your boat' - 'blows up your skirt' - 'paddles your canoe' - JUST GO FOR IT.  Far be it from me to 'gag' anyone at all.  God knows.  It's insufferable.    And IF, indeed, this dialogue will then be construed as a 'debate' - then who am I to deny you the use of such a prestigious term. 

I get a kick out of her post regarding the so-called capacitor test. Wow, who would have thought that the oscillation would die when the batteries were removed? We all thought the capacitor would continue to hold the fort, didn't we?

Good grief

.99

And this?  LOL.  Are you proposing that YOU and HARTI et al - didn't seriously require us all to replace our batteries with a capacitor?  I'm reasonably certain that you did.  It was a clamorous appeal promoted on the understanding that somehow one could separate a current from its source and then RE-CYCLE this.  Which would be outside the scope of even our standard model's assumptions related to the properties of electric current.  Not that the idea hasn't got merit.  Just that it lacks scientific merit.

Anyway Poynty Point.  PLEASE.  If you EVER feel that I've written something that you can REFUTE - anything at all that you think may 'error' as you like put it - then.  AGAIN.  DO NOT HOLD BACK.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Poynty,

Here's that extract again.  Do you want to start with this?  It seems to be bugging you.

Effectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity.
            A capacitor has no retained potential difference after a discharge of its energy. Therefore, to test whether this retained potential difference is a required condition to enable the oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during operation when the oscillation was fully established. The batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that the retained potential difference at the primary supply source is required, if not entirely responsible, for driving this oscillation. Which, in turn, points to the need for any applications of this technology that are either restricted to battery supply sources or, if a grid supply is used, that the circuit is applied directly in series with that supply source thereby being able to access the potential difference at that supply.

Kindest as ever
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Oh well guys.  It seems that Poynty ONLY wants it to 'appear' that he's not allowed his 'chance' to argue.  Fair enough.  He now REALLY needs to use every propagandising tool in the tool box.  LOL.  And clearly.  He has no grounds to argue - nor the courage to try.  It all bodes well for the progress of this new science.  Much needed. 

Since this is all straying a tad off topic - I'd also like to bring something else to your attention - lest it's eluded you all thus far.  That 'hate blog' of mine was put on the internet by someone who calls himself 'the Boss'.  Golly.  One assumes then that he's the 'man'.   The guy that 'pays his employees' and calls the shots.  And what then does that say about Poynty, Humbugger, Tinsel Koaloa, Cat Lady?  -  And on - and ON?  Do they have a defined 'job specification' that is 'required' to conform to whatever it is that 'the boss' needs?  Presumably.  I think that's certainly a fair presumption - on the face of it.  Well.  I also know that one of their more dedicated contributors is a certain 'Mookie'.  LOL.  The name sort of skids around associations with 'Mucky' and 'Mooching' and 'Mocking' and such like insinuations.  It gives an indication of how it is that they all choose their names.  Well just for the record.  I happen to KNOW who Mookie is.  I have his 'number'.  Specifically I HAD his number.  It's an IP address that some rather active investigators managed to 'discover' in their dedicated search related to Nuclear Expansion Programs - here in South Africa.  So.  I'm hoping that this little post of mine will be a small guide to the 'laws of the land'.  It's widely considered 'CRIMINAL' to accuse anyone of FRAUD - unless one also has the PROOF of that fraud.  And the first requirement in any fraudulent accusation is to find EVIDENCE of 'conning the public' or a 'member of the public' out of their hard earned money.  Without that evidence  then any unsubstantiated accusation of FRAUD is - ITSELF - CRIMINAL.  And here's the joke.  We have actual CRIMINALS FRAUDULENTLY claiming fraud.  And Google enables this - enables any allegations - dressed up in any manner of hate speech required - provided ONLY that the identities of those criminals remains protected.  Which means that Google - itself - is enabling criminal activities in the name of 'freedom of speech'.  Where does all this accountability end?  And how absurd is that?

I was in discussion about that Hate Blog with a kindly professor who advised me that he's well aware of it.  LOL.  He's words 'They're trying to look up your skirts.'  ' It's because they're jealous.'  IF ONLY.  My own take is because they're all rather anxious to promote nuclear expansion programs and equally anxious to prevent this seemingly 'unstoppable' march to CHEAP AND ABUNDANT energy.

All rather twisted.  But it needs saying. Else why in Heaven's name is there this FRANTIC effort to try and discredit our work?  I ask you?  It may have been justified if I'd EVER attempted to capitalise on this.  And I most assuredly HAVE NOT.  I've only encouraged others to reap the benefit. 



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

In the unlikely event that any of you want to get familiar with this - here's the link.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html

[TinselKoala]

Here we go again. Rosemary STILL refuses to deal with this: Here is the entire basis for her claim of excess energy and battery recharging from the experiments she claims to have done.
I've explained the math errors and the conceptual errors before. Note well: the claim of excess anything is based on the MATH ERROR and when the calculation is done correctly it is evident that the batteries could perform many such tests without being appreciably discharged.
Until Rosemary RETRACTS the claims made here and CORRECTS the math errors, I don't think it's necessary or proper to discuss any current testing, because she will try to "analyze" the results according to her technique shown below.

The following is a direct quotation from OU dot com, by Rosemary Ainslie, explaining the basis for her battery recharging/overunity claim.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/660/

Reply # 666 in the thread !!

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Please..... Stefan, .99, and the other mystery reader...... DO THE MATH.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear TK,

There comes a time in the life of a forum where the 'trolls' are identified by their insistence on repeating the same complaint over and over and over.  Your own contributions as a dedicated 'disclaimer' of all things clean and green - are well known.  Also apparent is your insistence on repeating the same complaint - time out of mind - with the clear intention of 'flaming' this thread to DEATH.  Let me remind you.  Here's the ANSWER - WRITTEN IN FULL and explained in AS MUCH DETAIL AS IT DESERVES.  I'll propose some other subjects that may be of interest to our readers and to you - hereafter.

Meanwhile, I trust that it's understood that your entire objective here is to DISCREDIT our technology, and any claims associated with this technology based on something that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO OUR PAPER WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE CLAIM associated with this.  While I understand how you RELY on this - may I also IMPOSE on you to read my answer.  That way - when you do decide to 'flame' this thread - you'll at least use some appropriate excuses to do so.

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

And here we have a sample of Poynty's real genius which is to POYNT at anything and everything that is ENTIRELY irrelevant.  As ever he uses those tangenital markers... or is that tangential?  Can never remember.  Either way - those 'poynters' of his are rather too nominal.  They are, to sign posts, what the little finger is to the hand.  Which is both small and dispensable and partially crooked.  I won't include Bubba's comments - because that would really confuse us all.  I get it though that she's trying to pass herself off as a 'man'.  Whatever next?  A man would never be that obsessed.  Unless, like Poynty and some others who post here - they're in drag.  Therefore?  I rest my case.    I'm not sure who else commented.  Mainly because I really don't care enough.  But girls.  Thank you.  I've had my first real laugh both at my own adventurous reach into elementary mathematics and your own transparent need to refer to this and nothing else.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If I didn't know better - I'd be inclined to think that you didn't like me any more than you like our technology.  Fortunately I know this isn't the case.

Anyway lest I entirely lose my 'poynty point' - for sheer want of size and structure - then let me re-iterate.  Or rather. Let Poynty 're-iterate'.  It's a refreshing example of his 'courtesy' which is also lacking in 'parts'.And here's my answer.  AGAIN.

TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!

My dear Poynty Point,

.   If you're referring to the battery draw down test - then may I refer you to my 'conditions'.
.   If you're referring to a demonstration of the tests included in our paper - GLADLY.  Just nominate the venue.
.   If you're referring to that absurd test related to 'lights' and what have you - then 'NO'.

But only because a far more significant variation has been done.  And it resulted in the a single row of LED's STAYING LIT.  And draw your own conclusions from this.  They none of them will conform to standard prediction.

Kindest regards, Poynty Point
From your very own
Rosy Posy
AKA (also known as) Rosie Pose.