Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Ken the Great]

Sorry willy yer in the box, your posts mean nothing.

[WilbyInebriated]

Sorry willy yer in the box, your posts mean nothing.

so that's a no then, you can't show where i said 'no need to do that'...

what's with the emotional responses and making claims you won't/can't backup? all i am asking for is for you to show where i said 'no need to do that'. it's a simple thing, even for a 'super genius' like you, you just find the post where i said 'no need to do that' and then clicky on the quote button like a big boy...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

... you should take your gravity wheel idea over to http://www.overunityresearch.com/  there are some really smart guys over there that just love to chat and chat and chat and chat and could probably help you out...

I had to withdraw there Wilby.  I had no-one to fight my corner with me.  Very lonely. And the arguments were more repitious than I could handle.  I also rather suspect that Poynty Poynt will never allow you on board. Can't think why?  LOL.

[Vortex1]

Hello Rosemary

your quote

Hello Vortex1

That test you describe.?  Its done and fully accounted in that paper where we offered the link.  We don't however use that styrofoam box.  But nor do we need to as the degree of heat dissipated at the resistive load is high enough to prove the point.

It intrigues me that this information is freely available and yet none of you have actually studied it.  In any event, I must hand it to you that you explained the required parameters very clearly.

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

Here it is again, for good measure.

I respectfully must disagree with your statement that the test I offered was performed . I read your paper many times and find no such simplified test procedure.

I find a lot of links to the Energetic Forum, endless and mostly meaningless scope shots with aliasing and other artifacts, pictures of test setups that speak volumes about the lack of experience of it's planners regarding transient effects, lots of backslapping and kudos (totally inappropriate for a supposedly scientific paper) but nowhere is there hard scientific data presented.

A good scientific paper is self contained, clearly written, and will have all the data contained in it, all charts, graphs etc., not by using links to free energy forums.

When someone tells you the object you are measuring is 17 feet long (COP>17) you do not need a specially constructed large micrometer to tell that it is less than one foot long(COP<1).....even an inaccurate  cloth tape measure will reveal the truth.

Kind regards.....V

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Rosemary


I respectfully must disagree with your statement that the test I offered was performed . I read your paper many times and find no such simplified test procedure.

It's all there Vortex.  Maybe not described with the simplicity that you may require.  The register of the writing is not designed to suit you and frankly we need to keep it that way.  But I assure you it's there. 

I find a lot of links to the Energetic Forum, endless and mostly meaningless scope shots with aliasing and other artifacts, pictures of test setups that speak volumes about the lack of experience of it's planners regarding transient effects, lots of backslapping and kudos (totally inappropriate for a supposedly scientific paper) but nowhere is there hard scientific data presented.

If you find the scope shots meaningles, and photos inadequate then that speaks to your inability to see their significance and not to their presentations.  It's all a matter of opinion - as you rightly pointed out.  But we're rather anxious to cater to academic opinion in this matter.  And they will definitely see the significance.   

A good scientific paper is self contained and will have all the data contained in it, all charts, graphs etc., not by using links to free energy forums.

These are exceptional claims and require exceptional proof.  The inclusion of the links is intended to address this.  If they require that we append these at the end of the paper we will oblige.  But, with respect, I'd prefer to get this advice from our reviewers.

When someone tells you the object you are measuring is 17 feet long (COP>17) you do not need a specially constructed large micrometer to tell that it is less than one foot long(COP<1).....even an inaccurate  cloth tape measure will reveal the truth.

This mishmash of example and nonsense rather puts paid to my earlier respect for an evident clarity of thought. 

Vortex we none of us have entered into a collaboration of this nature before and there are no blue prints on how to submit a paper that has no citable presentations for comparison.  I'm satisfied that if there are proposed changes to the presentation then we will be advised accordingly by the reviewers.