Questions regarding prize

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I note this convention to use the '@' in place of a simple and polite greeting.  Personally I find it offensive.  If anyone sent me a letter addressed @Rosemary - I would not read it.  I don't have that indulgence on these forums because I always need to be alert to attack and often, such as in this instance - it requires both a read and an answer.  More's the pity.

So in the spirit of that convention this is @Mark - specifically :S:MarkSCoffman.

Selling DOES NOT depend on belief.  It might assist in the selling.  But when one purchases a product that claims to whisk eggs - one can be reasonably certain that it will whisk eggs.  If it claims to suck dirt we can expect it to suck dirt.  If it does not perform we can get our money back.  Or try to.

While any device conforms to the known laws of physics one does not expect an explanation of the working of that device.  What you're actually saying is that if a product does NOT conform to known laws of physics then one expects the experimenter to have an explanation or an understanding - such that the performance is not miraculous.

If Stefan's investigation into the performance of any circuit was also contracted with the declared effective ability to market the product subject to the evidence of that declared efficiency - then, indeed, I'd be willing to get into a contractual relationship in terms of that prize money.

As it is.  The thesis is there which indicates that the effect is NOT miraculous.  The proof of concept is MORE THAN ADEQUATE for any standard claim which does or does NOT breach thermodynamic barriers.  The results HAVE been widely accredited.  The test HAS been replicated.  And we ARE developing this to application phase.  I think that addresses the actual requirements reasonably adequately.  Not only that but the technology is NOT patented.  Anyone, including Sefan, is able to progress this in the interests of Clean Green or New Energy or in any way he requires.  THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS. 

The actual problem is the effective reach of those so called 'MIB's'.  It is my considered opinion that their reach is FAR MORE COMPREHENSIVE than even you realise - :S:MarkSCoffman - with the utmost respect.  And it is my considered opinion that your sentiments expressed in that rambling post, gives proof of just how effective they are.  In the light of the evidence - the efficiencies that have been here disclosed - and related as they are to the experimental results required to prove that thesis - then correctly - the news of this device should be 'gripping' attention everywhere.  It's NOT.  Nor is it likely to until Mainstream are on board and until manufacturers see the light to making a profit.  I am not sure that winning some prize money will advance this any more quickly than our own efforts in this regard.

Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

[mscoffman]

>I note this convention to use the '@' in place of a simple and polite greeting.
>Personally I find it offensive. If anyone sent me a letter addressed @Rosemary
> - I would not read it. I don't have that indulgence on these forums because I
> always need to be alert to attack and often, such as in this instance - it requires
> both a read and an answer. More's the pity.

>So in the spirit of that convention this is @Mark - specifically :S:MarkSCoffman.

>http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

Thank You Rosemary,

It seems you are attempting to avoid reasonable discourse by name-calling.
This is especially annoying since by your own admission you don't have a
broad knowledge of the sciences. I don't make that claim for myself.

>Selling DOES NOT depend on belief. It might assist in the selling. But when one
>purchases a product that claims to whisk eggs - one can be reasonably certain
>that it will whisk eggs. If it claims to suck dirt we can expect it to suck dirt. If it
>does not perform we can get our money back. Or try to.

>While any device conforms to the known laws of physics one does not expect an
>explanation of the working of that device. What you're actually saying is that if a
>product does NOT conform to known laws of physics then one expects the
>experimenter to have an explanation or an understanding
> - such that the performance is not miraculous.

>As it is. The thesis is there which indicates that the effect is NOT miraculous.
>The proof of concept is MORE THAN ADEQUATE for any standard claim which
>does or does NOT breach thermodynamic barriers. The results HAVE been
>widely accredited. The test HAS been replicated. And we ARE developing this
>to application phase. I think that addresses the actual requirements reasonably
>adequately. Not only that but the technology is NOT patented.

I have a problem with your veracity of finding the lack of desirability of winning
the overunity prize.

This is a simple straightforward question about whether the folks on overunity.com
have a vested interest or not in the outcome of your application of your idea. If
you don't want the prize then you haven't engaged the reputation of
overunity.com members and I don't see any problem. The problem is that you
are not the first person to see this effect, in fact in my estimation this has been
invented hundreds of times previously. These things always seem to be surrounded
by defective operating theory. I think the solution lies in the fact that is possible
to effectively patent defective theory while scientific principles are not
patentable, via the major MIB player.

By not waiting until science understands the device to the core. It won't be
your knowledgability against trollish MIBs, but rather your defective theory
of operation against MIBS future scientific knowledge. Then they do things
to change the average situation that only affects the operation of your device,
so the device slowly begins to malfunction until ultimately the effect will eventually
disappears entirely. Now everyone who bought your device will want their money
back, and guess to whose doorstep they will come.

>If Stefan's investigation into the performance of any circuit was also contracted
>with the declared effective ability to market the product subject to the evidence
>of that declared efficiency - then, indeed, I'd be willing to get into a contractual
>relationship in terms of that prize money. Anyone, including Stefan, is able to
>progress this in the interests of Clean Green or New Energy or in any way he
> requires. THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS.

Your suggestion is ludicrous. Stefan what does is currently more than sufficient
for this group and if he did any evaluation under contract then I would begin to
doubt his impartiality. I suspect this is case that you can get for free what you
can not buy.

>The actual problem is the effective reach of those so called 'MIB's'. It is my
>considered opinion that their reach is FAR MORE COMPREHENSIVE than
>even you realize - :S:MarkSCoffman - with the utmost respect. And it is my
>considered opinion that your sentiments expressed in that rambling post,
>gives proof of just how effective they are.

>Rosemary Ainslie

I don’t quite believe the comprehensiveness of MIBS reach though I realize
you have most probably experienced the worst “front end” of what I expect
they do. And now your asking to experience the "back end". Don't worry
yourself excessively though, someday somewhere someone is going to
do this whole free energy project correctly.

:S:MarkSCoffman

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRcavitationb.pdf

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And thank YOU, Mark.  Where have I, by my own admission, ever stated that I do not have a broad knowledge of the sciences?  Indeed I DO have a broad knowledge of the sciences.  Very broad indeed.  Especially as it's related to theory.  And this must be the first time in the history of these forums where one is accused of 'name calling' when addressing a member by their actual name.  I see you inserted a link to my 'If I were a troll'.  The relevance to that link is to encourage readers to beware the lurking troll.  If I intended to alert readers to the possibility that you were a troll then I assure you, I would have been specific.  I DO NOT think you are a troll.  You are simply misguided.   

And 'a problem' with my 'veracity'?  LOL.  Remarkably circuitous way to telling me that I'm a liar.    I have a great deal of respect for Stefan - especially as this relates to his interest in OU.technology.  But I do not want his prize.  It does NOT guarantee acceptance of the technology.  Nor does it promise an advancement of the technology.  In fact, from memory, I understand the prize represents a forfeiture of the ownership of that technology.  It's already owned - by open source.  I doubt that I could confer that right in any context - and in any event.

Indeed I am NOT the first person to see this effect.  As you say, it's been 'invented' hundreds of times - even if the term 'invention' is used here in a rather exotic context.  But I assure you it is NOT possible to patent a theory - defective or otherwise.  And there is NO SUCH THING as defective theory.  By definition Theory works and has been tested and proven.  It may be that it can be modified - or it can be extended - or it can be revised.  But for any thesis to be referred to as 'a Theory' then it's been tested in an appropriate context.  Else it would remain  a thesis.  I have many a 'beef' against mainstream.  But when it comes to elevating a thesis to a theory - that first requires some stringent proofs.  And I'm entirely satisfied that Mainstream will always step up to the plate to do what's required.  Science is NOT a guessing game.  It's way more serious than that.

You state that i have a 'defective theory'?  In the first instance I DO NOT have a theory.  In the second could you tell me what is defective in my thesis - which I presume you are referring to?  And why would everyone want their money back?  Have they paid me for something?  If so I was entirely unaware of that transaction.

Rosemary

EDITED added 'Not'