another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[energy1234hope]

Really nasty trolls out and about today. In one ear and out the other rosie that's the best way to deal with rude crude people.

[powercat]

Really nasty trolls out and about today. In one ear and out the other rosie that's the best way to deal with rude crude people.

You need to read more to understand that this situation has been going on for years and there are other threads and other forums that you probably haven't even seen, tens of thousands of posts, all leading to one conclusion that this circuit does not work as claimed.

I know you are new here and there is a lot of information to take in so you probably missed this post.

Everyone please note:

I have ALWAYS encouraged anyone with the skill and the wit and the kit to build and test Rosemary's claims for themselves. Go ahead and do it. Show your work, share it, and there is enough expertise here so that you can get it right. Just do it.

I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to put 25,000,000 Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes using her circuit, as she has claimed she has done, over and over.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

"And I will ignore all further comments related to the topic under discussion."

You have finally said something that is probably true.

You can fire off all the ad hominem arguments you like. I'll stipulate that I'm a slimeball lowlife scumsucker, if you like, but that has NOTHING at
ALL to do with your claim of 25.6 megaJoules and that that demonstration used more than the battery's capacity.

I could be Santa Claus, Bill Gates, or Satan himself, incarnate, and it wouldn't matter at all, you would still be laughably and totally wrong. And
everybody reading here knows it.

Where are your defenders?

Guys I've copied this so that it can be readable.  Fuzzy is doing his trick with that 'falling off the page' bit.  You must all make allowances.  He is
dyslexic and can hardly write let alone read.  Which is why he relies on pasting over copious and irrelevant posts in his efforts to distance my
comments from your focus.  Sadly we're dealing with an infantile mind that relies on his rather colourful tantrums to communicate anything
at all.  His dyslexia is not his fault.  Some of my best friends are dyslexic.  What is his fault is that he is so far without professional principle that
he cannot engage in any level of professional conduct.  I personally would be rather ashamed if anyone of his type would ever approve of me.

Thankfully they seem to rather dislike me.  Which is a matter of some considerable personal pride.  I am only sorry that it is not only myself who
is irritated by these constant interventions.  It seems that war is war.  And Wilby was right to not engage, which he described as this 'Vietrnam'.
Hopefully between the 'snipes' and covert attacks I can yet reference what matters.  I'm only sorry - yet again - that I seem to induce this level
of aggression.  It escalates every time the topic becomes interesting.  Go figger.  And I have no option - but to engage.  But I'll try and minimise
the comment in the hopes of somehow salvaging the object of this topic.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Bring it on. You dare to threaten me?
I can prove everything I say, anywhere anytime, in court if you like, and you cannot. Let me warn you though... the jurisdiction will be in Texas.

Another reminder TK.  I'm most anxious to 'bring it on' - and indeed I dare threaten you.  Let us know your name and then I will be happy to
engage with you - in a most appropriate manner.  Until then I put it to you that you are a coward - abusing your internet anonymity to destroy
my good name while you protect your own.

Let us see the courage that you claim I lack.  Go on TK.  How about it?  I won't bother with Harvey Gramm, nor with Glen Lettenmaier - as I'm
not sure that I'd be able to even salvage my costs.  But I've got a shrewd idea that I'd do rather well off you.  Let's see whether you can manage
to defend yourself when the playing fields are leveled?  Or are you rather too frightened to put your word to the test in a court of law where such
things are usually managed?

Can't wait.  It will be the most entertaining experience yet - where I will be able to kill two birds with one stone and do so publicly.   The one bird
is your interventions and the second bird is our unity barriers.  Both have outlived their value.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And another reminder.  This time for Powercat who is on record for vociferously denying that any of our tests have ever been replicated.  Kindly
note.  Glen Lettenmaier's own Scribd publication of my own paper claims categorically that he has 'replicated' our earlier COP>17 test. He did not
quite manage COP>17.  But he certainly achieved COP>1.  And in the context of over unity - then that, in itself - is actually enough.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

The opening paragraph stipulates

The objectives of these tests are to replicate and evaluate the published heat signatures developed with an aperiodic resonating
frequency with subharmonics that are induced through the fine tuning of the interactive duty cycle of a MOSFET switching circuit.  Results
indicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well above COP.4 in line with the predictions of an
alternative magnetic field model

the introduction states that...
The following tests were designed to replicate an experiment that was described in Quantum Magazine (QuantumTest)
published in October, 2002. [1] That earlier test pointed to anomalous heat signatures that were achieved, as predicted by a non classical
magnetic field model, hereafter referred to as ‘MMRA’ (Magnetic Model by Rosemary Ainslie) [2]. This open source submission details the
experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data together with a variety of related tests that were designed to evaluate
the adequacy of those applied test parameters. Because test replication results were in line with those detailed in the publication, it was
considered that this submission of the experimental results would allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and of the questions relating
to those anomalies, as being preferred and required.

Here's the measure of the man Guys.  I believe Powercat is most anxious that you believe there has never been a replication.  So odd.  When
Glen Lettenmaier himself claims this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary