Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[exnihiloest]

I am willing to replicate this device ...

Hi Twinbeard,

Thank you for your reply. You are very optimistic. I wish you the success for your project and hope you will inform the group about your results, even if they were negative (yes I'm skeptic, due to so many OU claims in the past, which have been proved to be scams or errors). The truth comes only through the doubts of the open minds .

[Hope]

Lambrights device worked for me, Geet device 90% ready when my tired arske gets it done. I have need to use one (or more) in a food dehydrator we here are building  to donate to the local food bank/farm.  So I have decided to use Rosie's heating circuits,  I find it funny that when seeking working solutions so hard that people find themselves the greatest block to finding answers.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well, in this case, please consider that I want to do what I don't need.   

Hi guys,

I've been seething about this post since I saw it this morning.  My reaction is definitely disproportionate.  But here's the thing.  The evidence for overunity requires much, much more than evidential proof. 

Fortunately, unlike the most of the members here - when I started out on this quest I actually never knew that it was impossible to breach what I subsequently learned was 'the energy barrier'.  I knew nothing about thermodynamic laws and simply could not understand why it is that people were not recycling an electric current.  My analysis of the magnetic field showed this as a possibility.  But - by the same token - nor had my own reading of the subject EVER suggested that current flow comprised electrons.  In fact, on the contrary - the reading, at this early stage, was restricted to Dyson and to Zukov.  And both simply advised that it was the flow of 'charge' and that electron current flow was simply a 'conceptual' guide to this.  My assumption was that everyone realised this.  Since the properties of that 'charge' had not been identified - and as the analysis seemed to show that it could easily be magnetic flux - then it seemed a logical development to that argument.

Since then - I've learned how very wrong I was.  Not only is there a broad based assumption that current flow is the flow of electrons - against all kinds of evidence to the contrary - but the conviction seems to carry a kind of moral imperative that is as entrenched as it is illogical.  There are clearly a small minority of theoretical physicists who realise that it is not the flow of electrons.  But this fact is not even whispered in most text books.  What has happened to science that it is now determined by majority consensus?  Like a kind of approval of the majority by the majority?  Science is not based on democratic principles.  It's based on experimental evidence - for goodness sake.  And there is NO evidence of electrons being the cause of current flow.

But be that as it may.  IF current flow comprises any kind of matter - at all - then it would be theoretically IMPOSSIBLE not to exceed those energy barriers.  Is this why our theorists won't openly subscribe to dark energy from dark matter?  Is it because - at the heart of the problem - is the need to CONFORM to thermodynamic contraints?  Seems strange.  Thermodynamic Laws are forever being altered.  Yet - on this one issue - an overwhelming percentage of our trained scientists - absolutely WILL not concede to the possibility that the forces are determined by invisible 'matter'.  It's an issue that is absolutely at the forefront of astrophysics - having been proven by the most careful of measurements.  And yet.  Almost the entire global school of scientists manage to close their eyes to this evidence.  It's EXTRAORDINARY. 

Then.  When one presents proof of these breaches - of 'crashing through' those energy barriers - then that proof is NEVER considered sufficient.  Not even when its replicated.  And there's a sense of moral or intellectual superiority in those idiots who will NOT look at contradictory evidence - will NOT give credence to carefully measured test results - will NOT listen to objective evaluations of disproof - and will do so with the smug superiority of an alpha male in a troop of baboons.  They will brook no dispute. 

When science cannot be evaluated by the evidence - then we're really in trouble guys.  That makes science a religion.  But of the worst kind.  And the worst of it is that the only way to try and swim against this tide of unscientific assumption - is to confront it and confront it and confront it.  It's emotionally draining and intellectually offensive - whichever way one turns.  Not a happy situation.  It would be nice if science could again be simply evaluated by the experimental evidence.  It's the only hope we have to advance anything at all.  God alone knows how long we're to wait until the general attitude eventually changes. 

Regards
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Lambrights device worked for me, Geet device 90% ready when my tired arske gets it done. I have need to use one (or more) in a food dehydrator we here are building  to donate to the local food bank/farm.  So I have decided to use Rosie's heating circuits,  I find it funny that when seeking working solutions so hard that people find themselves the greatest block to finding answers.

Hi Hope.  Our posts crossed.  LOL.  DELIGHTED you'll be doing some current 'recyling'.  It's GOT to be an improvement. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[markdansie]

@TK
my daughter wants more penguin videos from you , she loves them
Mark