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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now, again, I still don't understand why do you need experiments in overunity in order to promote your idea of what the nature of current is. One may consider your idea of current in conductors such as copper as being controversial enough to be supplemented by another controversial idea such as the claim for OU. It seems you can choose some well accepted system where current flows and work out your thesis there. Why do you need OU at all for sustaining your thesis?

Ominibus - I hope I don't have to repeat this.  We need the thesis to explain the measurement.  We can debate the measurement - if you choose to - for as long as you like.  But the measurements are NOWHERE at question outside your persistent desire to revisit these.  No expert has challenged our protocols.  There is an IMPLICIT acceptance based on the measuring instruments as being adequate and the protocols being sufficient.  NONE of our papers have been submitted for review and then rejected.  Don't you realise how anxious the academics are to disprove this result?  And can't you see that they would enjoy nothing better than an excuse to reject the paper as it's based on erroneous measurements?  If they saw such they would have submitted the paper and had it duly and permanently discredited.  They can't do this.  Therefore they do not even submit the paper for review.  SO.  The ONLY thing at question is why these measurements should be ever be possible. I've said it before - and will do so as often as is required.  The ONLY advantage of our little circuit is that the measurements are NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION.  That's not yet been managed elsewhere - to the best of my knowledge.  But I'm open to correction.  In any event this experiment and associated artifacts have been correctly and duly measured and recorded.  That's done and dusted.  We now need to develop it to application phase - include the academics in accreditation - and then?  Hopefully we'll get the kind of attention that all OU technology is looking for.  In any event.  Every bit helps.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, as far as I understand, you take the fact that your papers are not even being submitted for review as showing that these journals know they are really true but they don't want to accept it and they don't want your studies to become known. Sadly, there's another option and unfortunately it may be the more likely option--by not even submitting the papers for review these journals are not only rejecting them but are simply ignoring them. They simply "know" this is incorrect and don't even give it the time of day. Sad, indeed. It's not even preventing them from publication. Plain and simple ignoring.

This attitude of the journals has to be fought somehow and I'm willing to help in this respect as difficult as it is.

In the meantime, could you please tell me names of academics who have independently verified your experimental results so that I can contact them and even visit them -- here in the US or in Europe where I'm going to be in September. 

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, you sayL

And Omnibus - if I left it to the scientific community to explain it then they would first have to dismantle the entire structure of physics.

Not really. I have shown that the possibility to produce more energy out than in is inherent in the electrical phenomena but has been overlooked until now. So, it's not a matter of dismantling but adding to the existing physics.

[TheCell]

@Rosemary : Will you transfer your knowledge to us, so that an average experienced electronic guy will be able to replicate your device, or will you simply bring it to market?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary : Will you transfer your knowledge to us, so that an average experienced electronic guy will be able to replicate your device, or will you simply bring it to market?

Hi TC.  Welcome to the discussion.  All that has been tested to proof of concept is best written up in our paper.  And certainly that is easily understood.  I'll add a link - gladly.

Regarding the appliance - there are some major concerns here.  I believe that our own developments are simply being duplicated by Harvey and Glenn on EF.com.  Then they predate their post to make it seem as if we're duplicating them.  Proof of that is with the element we designed for our first test.  This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.  I had not yet got to the detailed explanations when I discovered Glen's picture of a totally standard element and some fatuous comments from CatLady (Harvey's wife) congratulating them on this development.  It's laughable.  So.  I actually think we need to keep some aspects of our tests entirely off forum until the appliance is ready to market.  But there is NOTHING to stop us posting those results as they develop.  It will be an interesting learning curve.  We've had long and arduous discussions regarding the switching required to retain that high voltage but also allow more current flow.  And, of course, endless discussions related to the control of the switch to generate the CEMF without swamping out the self-oscillation required.  It's very challenging.

Hope that helps. 
Kind regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS