another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

You may be right about the battery type, but to date, I have never seen Rosemary make that a requirement, have you?

Rosemary suggested that smaller capacity batteries could be used. From a technical point of view, what is your objection to a 2 amp-hour battery?

[Magluvin]

You may be right about the battery type, but to date, I have never seen Rosemary make that a requirement, have you?

Rosemary suggested that smaller capacity batteries could be used. From a technical point of view, what is your objection to a 2 amp-hour battery?

Well, if Rose says it could work, then she is not sure of it. Its not a fact yet that it will work.  Details. 

There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?     

Lets say for example, we have a dime and the earth.  If we try to pump electrons into the dime and measured the current from start till full, and then we do the same with the earth, which test would have shown more current flow for how long? When dealing with HF AC and batteries, Im sure there are things to find out.

My casual point is, it may be easier for the larger batteries to take on a charge compared to a smaller battery, just because of the vast differences in the reservoirs.

With the batteries, I cant say this is fact or not.  But if the 2ah test does not work, those batteries will be in question. Better to do it right and gitter dun already. Then if it does work, if the interest was there to find out, try the 2ah and see if things are different.

If it doesnt work if you try the 2ah first, you dont really have the choice of not buying both sets of batteries to come to an absolute conclusion.


There is a name for it.  Ripple    That is the difference.  And it could be enough to make a difference in this circuit claim. So why take the chance? With so much invested already.  Its up to you.  I wont argue this any further. I dont have more reasons to.

Mags

[Magluvin]

The batteries are silver calcium, not silver oxide as I said mistakenly. Thanks Kitty
Ok, that is settled. all in 1 post. 

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - NOTA BENE

. If, subsequent to publication of a paper - an author finds his claim is incorrect then he is required to withdraw publication
. This to uphold the principle and integrity required, not only of that published scientist but of claims related to all scientific findings
. Glen Lettenmaier - who here hides behind the identity of Fuzzy Tom Cat published the following on his Scribd File
. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
. This CLAIMS to be a replication of an earlier COP>17 test - as detailed in the introduction.
. He subsequently DENIES that it is a replication
. Therefore, by rights, he needs must withdraw that publication.
. I would STRONGLY advise anyone reading here to copy that opening paragraph
. This, because being unprincipled he is likely, retrospectively, to modify or delete this subsequent to this post.
. I have - pro temp - made my own copy of this.
. It unequivocally states that it is a replication of an earlier COP>17 test.

Therefore IF he is now stating that it is NOT a replication then he NEEDS MUST REMOVE THAT PUBLICATION.
Moving on

. You will notice that my name is first on that list of authors.  This indicates that I'm what is known of as 'first author'.
. As first author it is acknowledged that the paper was initiated, motivated and guided by me.
. I, in fact, wrote two thirds of that paper in conjuction with another author.
. Harvey Gramm wrote an astonishing one third of it -  related to entirely extraneous principles
. All of which should have been omitted or subjected to some kind of editorial paring as it was excessive.
. The results of those tests were averaged in an entirely inappropriate and non-standard convention which I resisted.
. This was done deliberately to average the results down as they were, in fact, greater than the stated COP>4
. That paper was rejected.  We were required to submit to TIE within the IEEE group of publications.
. This required a rewrite which paper was then published on my own Scribd file.

added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

. Scribd authorities cannot deny the right to any one or all of those collaborators publishing - wherever they like
. Provided only that its collaboration is acknowledged.  In other words it acknowledges all authors
. This under the protection of rules related to collaborative publications.
. Glen Lettenmaier must have advised Scribd authorities that this was exclusively his own work
. That it did not fall under the rules of a collaboration
. Because I was advised under threat of possible action against me - that my publication of the paper was DISALLOWED
. Effectively Glen has STOLEN ownership of a paper in which he has not written a SINGLE sentence.
. And not a one of us can publish or access this - our own paper and our own work -  on Scribd without first taking this matter to Court. 
. An international action on this would require an expensive litigation procedure that I am entirely reluctant to engage in.

IF Glen Lettenmaier no longer claims this as a replication then he is claiming it as his discovery.  In either event he needs must withdraw that paper.  THEN he can claim what he likes.  Because my name will NOT then be associated with his duplicity.  Unfortunately, right now, and notwithstanding the clear and wanton deceptions related to this - my name is INTIMATELY related to his.  It is a matter of enduring shame that I ever engaged with a man who is so entirely lacking in principle.

The ultimate irony of this is that  I am accused - in page after page - by him - of being duplicitous.  I've said this before.  God help us all.  I haven't even touched on the thread that he and Harvey Gramm started on Energetic Forum where they publicly CLAIMED that their earlier results were ERRONEOUS and that they could not longer support that early claim.  Nor can I prove it.  They've REMOVED all those posts and now use it as an alternative hate blog against me.  LOL.  It is all too disgusting to speak of.  Yet it seems I must speak of it.  It is my opinion that Glen Lettenmaier is a scoundrel.  But that is with the caveat that it is ONLY my opinion.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary