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

[Omnibus]

Omnibus, I believe it has been stated previously that these professors did not attend the demonstration of this device.  Therefore I doubt they have any knowledge of the device or its supposed intricacies.

Actually one of them wrote to me that he has witnessed some experiments but he was not convinced that the experimental protocol and the measuring instruments were adequate to provide a verification of the claimed behavior. The other one wrote to me that he has asked her not to expect him to back up these claims. I think the case is pretty clear. If she wants to be taken seriously she has to come up with better experiments which will also stimulate others to replicate them. At this point, unfortunately, she is simply ignored by the mainstream. I can understand fully how she feels and I feel for her but she is the only one who can help to change this situation..

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys.  Thanks Tenbatsu for trying to state the obvious.  The simple truth is that I should know - more than most - the dangers of Open Source.  One is somehow seduced into thinking that one's dealing with reasonable honest people, when in point of fact one is actually in a death struggle with ego's as large as Africa.  My history on EF.com will always be up there as a benchmark of the actual dangers.  But the loudest most vociferous self-appointed judges come from these forums - NOT from academia.

But here's why I press on - pressing on.  There are many readers to these threads and our readers are not fools.  My entire objective is to assure as many people who can read and as many people who can manage power analysis - that proof of OU is out there.  And I speak with authority as I was personally involved in some of this progress.  And proud of the contribution. 

What irritates me though is the assumption that one can ever achieve OU within the confines of known classical thinking.  Unfortunately we're all going to have to adjust to profoundly changing paradigms that will - quite literally - upend our known physical paradigms.  And there are those who are just not equal to the challenge on an emotional level.  And there are others who are not equal to the challenge because they simply cannot grasp the concepts.  And there are even those who resist it to protect vested financial interests.  And there are those who are just plain scared.

The other point about these public records is that they're GOLD.  Inevitably there will be many players who will try and get patents on OU devices.  Not a bad thing in itself - but it'll leave us exactly where we are at the moment - which is pretty well at the mercy of monopolists who keep a stranglehold on the price of energy.  This because the 'big players' will eventually hold ALL those rights.  And public interest is not something that keeps our monopolists awake at nights.  As I see it every record of every device that is made public will challenge every attempt that is subsequently made to secure patents.  And if the science that justifies these OU results is widely understood, then the patenting of any such intellectual rights will be so easily breached that it will render any attempt at securing patents, patently absurd. LOL

I know, better than most, the difficulty in getting any kind of academic comment.  But off the record there is considerably more interest amongst our academics than is publicly evident.  And that's entirely due to the efforts of everyone on these forums.  It's courtesy the drive and interests of people like - actually the list is just so long it's silly to try and cover it all.  So I'll try that again.  It's courtesy the efforts of everyone here that they are now 'coming to the party' so to speak. 

So.  Roll on 'dark energy' or 'aether energy' or call it what you will.  There's plenty of it around.  We're just still in kindergarden - getting it up and running. 

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And another thing.  Professor Tapsen - then Dr Tapsen attended a public demonstration of the device held at the conference rooms of Coopers and Lybrand - in Cape Town in 2001.  He attended that demonstration with a Professor Green.  The evidence on display was the clear measure of a battery recharging - zero loss - with heat being dissipated at a load.  He deferred to the opinion of Professor Green who was the expert on energy and Professor Green stated - unequivocally - that, notwithstanding the evidence, THERE MUST BE A MEASUREMENT'S ERROR.  Subsequent attempts by me to include Professor Green in a dialogue was ENTIRELY FRUITLESS.  He would not discuss the matter - under any circumstances AT ALL.  Then Dr Tapsen kindly read my field model and stated that it was a 'self consistent argument'.  In as much as his disciplines cover both electrical engineering and physics that comment was appreciated.  The downside to those early tests was that the wattage measured was insignificant.  But the level of COP was far, far greater than 17 as there was a negative loss to the battery.

Professor  Gaunt on the other hand was intimately associated with many tests.  We were called on to vary the protocols to ever increasing levels of proof and proficiency all of which was funded entirely by myself - culminating in the final requirement to perform electroplating on some metal that had to be managed through a utility supply source.  We did at least 4 carefully stipulated tests using the required measuring apparatus applied strictly in line with the protocols he required.  and he did not EVEN ONCE bother to attend a single test demonstration which we anxiously solicited so that we could show these our results.  When I finally challenged him on this point he drove out to the house, gave a cursory inspection to our apartus and - NOTWITHSTANDING - was absolutely NOT prepared to make a public comment. It seems that this attitude persists.

I have, until these last posts of mine - protected that rather shameful history of their involvement - and am glad to see some acknowledgement of their attendance - which, frankly, I did not expect.  The actual method of anlaysis, the measuring instruments used - the presentation of the data - the ENTIRE CATASTROPHE was done precisely in accordance with the methods stipulated by Professor Gaunt and by a slew of academics whose name I will keep OFF RECORD - lest anyone - again try and misrepresent my own representations here.

Having said all that I am now MOST DEFINITELY on campus.  And the tests are going to be conducted by a very rare breed.  Academics who are interested in experimental evidence.  The start of these tests should be conducted very soon - hopefully within a week.  The finer details of the apparatus will NOT be made public as EF.com are duplicating every step that we take - predating their posts - and thereby evidently intending to 'claim' the rights.  Our own intention is to make all aspects of the tests public that nothing can be patented - when those tests are completed.  And the name of the campus will also be kept off record lest anyone again try and disrupt the process.  Glen Lettenmaier attempted this in May of this year where he insinuated that the work we were doing was plagiaring his own efforts  - for goodness sake.  I did nothing to defend myself against this allegation and fortunately those same academics did their own investigation into the matter.  They then approached me to continue with the tests.

Regards,
Rosemary   

[Omnibus]

That's good to hear. More thorough tests are indeed needed. Also, every effort should be made to publish these results in the peer-reviewed literature. In this way not only the priority will be ensured but that will stimulate others to reproduce these findings. Good luck.

[b4FreeEnergy]

Hi Rosemary,

I finally made it to this forum and I'm glad to see that you’re still continuing your work, resulting in some serious over-unity soon I hope! ;-)

Cheers,
B