Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.

Not at all TK.  I have some background work to do.

.  I need assurance that the thread that I report on will not be 'flamed'.
.  Again
.  Or locked
.  Before the work is finished
.  Because that WILL jeopardise the technology
.  And our hard work
.  And the good of public interest
.  In relation to this claim
.  And I need assurance that the applied protocols will then constitute unequivocal proof
.  Which will take some negotiating
.  With all parties.

And I need to establish a series of tests as representative of that proof
And then I need to establish that proof as it relates to our thesis

Then - when that is managed
.  I need to establish the setting for those tests
.  And the methods required to bring this to the public arena
.  That nothing can be 'fudged' or 'falsely represented'
.  Because I know your tendency to 'imply and infer' such
.  And I want to be sure that you have no grounds for complaint.

Then - there would be no point in testing this
.  If I do not closely follow your work
.  Lest you negate the value of the tests
.  On spurious bases.
.  Which means that I have to study your arguments
.  Even before I present my own

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, while I'm at it and FOR THE RECORD.

We use 4 x 1 Ohm 10 Watt resistors. 
We have a 10 Ohm resistor that is disconnected to the circuit

And I NEVER reference COP>INFINITY.  And not only is COP infinity yet to be explained but it needs must have some qualification.  As the levels of that COP are VARIABLE.  Semantically confusing - but nonetheless - required.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

added
Actually we do not argue COP Infinity ever.  What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself.  The apparent COP Infinity is simply the result of our standard measurement protocols that only allow for one energy supply.  Therefore the term COP Infinity is simply an artifact related to one of the many anomalies that we're exposing in this circuit. 

[poynt99]

What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself.

Rosemary,

What material in the circuit is used up in the process? All, one specific?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,
The following is part of a background 'on going' complaint against me and my work - written to Stefan - with the general appeal that I be banned and thereby prevented from defending our work against any spurious arguments presented by any members at all.  Since I am heartily sick and tired of dealing with these background 'whispers' I am making that complaint public knowledge.  And I argue it accordingly.

The complainant states...

Stefan,I would agree totally now with Rosemary's continued misrepresentation of any facts by anyone presented is constantly challenged with uneducated nonsense babble from Rosemary.

My education is well equal to the task in hand.  And my language skills are considerably better than the 'babble' here referred to.

The continued denial of Rosemary in her testing and evaluation data being incorrect from data collection to the interpretation of that data.

The evaluation of that data is NOT incorrect.  And since the evaluation is related to the 'interpretation' then that qualification is redundant.

The simple question of "which" schematic was or was not used and presented in Rosemary's BLOG, PWESwiki and paper #2 to this day has not been answered.

The correct schematic applied to our tests has most CERTAINLY been answered.  If I knew how to access my locked thread I'd prove it.
continued/...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

All I see from Rosemary is lurking around attacking posters with anything unrelated to the conversation like a addict looking for a fix to get their rush.

I am indeed 'addicted' to defending our technology from 'attack'.  It's URGENTLY required lest spurious objections mitigate against the evidence and our public interest and public good thereby get jeopardised.

Rosemary still doesn't understand the thread she got locked down was from her own fault by giving incorrect information, unable to justify the results of the information she did provided, unable to answer all the questions directed towards the information she provided, new required additional testing she was directed to accomplish and didn't and to stop the redundant repeating of her incorrect test results.

This was NOT why the thread was locked.  It was locked because Stefan was innundated with claims from those such as this poster and TK flaming that thread to prevent any kind of decent progress of a discussion related to the required test parameters.

The requirement for further testing for a new thread is nonsense without a "firm" timeline, although everyone knows she isn't going to do any anyway as it would disrupt her prized unproven THESIS that this is all about, nothing really about a device or reproduction.

The ONLY thing that is delaying this is a firm undertaking by Stefan NOT to lock those threads before the completion of proposed series of tests which cover up to 7 different 'draw down' tests required against not less than 3 circuits to be tested.

Rosemary is a ignorant person that lives a life of false statements and bloviating her accomplishments for COP>INFINITY to which no one agrees with but herself.

In the first place I DO NOT advertise any accomplishments - let alone towards claims of COP>INFINITY - which we argue is nonsense.  And IF I am ignorant it does not, in any way, meet the level of ignorance related to this communication or to the communicator - who is STILL unaware of the extent of our claim. And there are many, many, many people who entirely agree that our measurements indicate COP Infinity.  At it's least this question needs to be addressed as there is no explanation for this within the standard model.  Therefore would it progress the interests of science, and the implications of that measurement would indicate that there is some real benefit to us all - to apply this technology.  As it exposes the evidence of an alternate energy supply source that has not, heretofore, been fully exploited.  And I do not bloviate.  I am merely articulate.  Which is something that this poor poster IS NOT.

There you have it.  This and variations of this communication continually FLOOD Stefan.  Is it any wonder that he simply locks my threads - or bans me?  To date I've resisted answering them.  Here's an exception.

Regards,
Rosemary