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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Rosemary!

Sorry for all the bad taste and troubles with my (rare) posts...

I'd really love to see your success... But, so far, i haven't see anything which would helped me to see the benefits or even understand your "invention"...?

In short, try to cut out the crap, and start to defend your "work"....  OK?



Sorry, that wasn't nice, I know.... Sorry.

Will you, please, show at least some kind of a proof for your claims?

I mean, like the real proof? It's not so hard... If there's really something...
Cheers!

I posted you a lengthy answer - but have deleted it.  Spinn - here is the paper.  If you can understand it well and good.  If you can't then I can't help you.

The first paper was published 9 years ago.  The test was replicated.  The paper above was record of that replication.  The first paper was a circuit designed to prove a thesis.

Here's the paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Here's the thesis.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

Here's a history of the collaboration
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

Here's some reasons for disputing mainstream concepts.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

If you can wrap your mind around that lot - then you'll know exactly where I come in. 

Rosemary

[spinn_MP]

Ah well... Don't bother.
I asked you for a real proof, not about your fantasies...

...
What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble.
...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ah well... Don't bother.
I asked you for a real proof, not about your fantasies...

I was reasonably sure that you'd come back with some such reply.  What's sad is if the facts were to stand up and bite you you still wouldn't notice them.  But it's not for lack of evidence - unfortunately Spinn.  It's for want of understanding that evidence.   

In any event.  You're opinion here has many who share it.  More's the pity.  The fact that the evidence conforms to mainstream protocols - and that it was all extrapolated with the finest of measuring instruments -  and the fact that it was entirely on view for the entire world to see - if they wanted to.  The fact that it was widely accredited.  None of it merits the slightest acknowledgement with those such as you.  I think it's like Paul mentioned. Those that won't see - just WON'T.  It's a psychological predispostion.  It has NOTHING to do with reality.  I'm sure - way back - Galileo must have got exasperated trying to tell us all that the world spun around the sun.  And nothing will change this opinion of yours.  Not even, as I've mentioned, if the evidence were to smack you in the face.  Something is lacking - and it's not OUR ability to assess the experimental evidence. 

Like you say.  There's no point in discussion on this kind of basis.  Either you understand what's written - or you don't.  Clearly you don't.  It's rather soul destroying to try and argue the evidence in the face of this much scepticism.  Actually.  It's impossible.

Rosemary

[happyfunball]

PUBLIC NOTICE

QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html  ( can we use your data for a paper )

witsend
Senior Member
   
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.

IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.


Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

[vonwolf]

PUBLIC NOTICE

QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html  ( can we use your data for a paper )

witsend
Senior Member
   
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.

IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.


Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

  Why on Earth would you drag this up now when it's over a year old? Talk about beating a dead horse, don't get me wrong I am very disappointed that you pulled out of the collaboration you did increadable work and at the time you seemed quite proud of it.
  I just don't understand I'm pretty sure the IEEE paper is but a distant memory so why bring it up?

   @spinn_MP
  Rose has been presenting her work and "defending" it for years and she hardly needs me to do it, she's quite accomplished at defending her self.  That said she started this thread to help document her progress she makes with the University's participation in a effort to keep this technology open source, she has already gone thru the fun times of working with others to try to replicate her experiment to prove her thesis, you just have to go back and read the 100's of posts here and elsewhere.
   Good luck Rose  Pete