What is over unity?

[Omnibus]

I give up Omnibus.  I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THESE EXPERIMENTS ARE THE SUBJECT OF INTEREST AT A UNIVERSITY WHERE WE'RE DOING EXPERIMENTS.

And your example of 'missile hits' is irrelevant - with respect.  And to dismiss calorimetric measurements flies in the face of acceptable scientific practice.  You're on your own here.  I am not sure WHY you need to so urgently dismiss the evidence that we've gleaned over the years.  But I'm satisfied that your attitude is WHY this technology is only progressed against this 'twittering' barrage of irrelevancies.  Your attitude is defeatist and your argument based on spurious reasoning.  Perhaps you should rally interest instead of continually casting doubts in the face of this hard won evidence.  All measurements that we have done are based on highly acknowledged and respectable measurement protocols.  It would serve the general OU drive MUCH BETTER if you acknowledged this.  And it concerns me that you don't.

One thing I KNOW.  If there had not been these and similar detractions throughout these Open Source Forums - then the news of this technology would be more widespread.  It is surprisingly NOT well known.   Which, frankly, is why I am now looking to other means of 'spreading the word' and which is why I'm so thankful that we've got academics on board.

I'm afraid the above is just wishful thinking on your part. I didn't get confirmation for the viability of your results from the professors you mentioned and I don't expect to get any more positive reference even if you continue to give me names to talk to. Of course, as I've already explained, that isn't unexpected for me, that isn't unusual, provided the very complex subject of study. On the other hand, we should not live with illusions imagining that things are different from what they really are.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I'm afraid the above is just wishful thinking on your part. I didn't get confirmation for the viability of your results from the professors you mentioned and I don't expect to get any more positive reference even if you continue to give me names to talk to. Of course, as I've already explained, that isn't unexpected for me, that isn't unusual, provided the very complex subject of study. On the other hand, we should not live with illusions imagining that things are different from what they really are.

I do not expect to get any confirmation from UCT.  Fortunately it is NOT THE ONLY UNIVERSITY in the Western Cape. There are those campuses that still consider that science should be based on EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  When this is the foundation of study then we can still have hope for science.

Added.  I need to SPELL THIS OUT.  Clearly.  We have been invited to use the laboratories of a local univeristy and have access to the extensive measuring equipment in those laboratories and to use the applied skills of some highly repectable engineers to design certain aspects of the required switching - so that we can have the appliance tested THOROUGHLY so that if there is any evident advantage in the technology that this can be made known.  Is that any clearer?

I might add that Glen Lettenmaier wrote to those academics to advise them that I was plagiarising his technolgy.  Go figger.    Fortunately they did their own thorough investigation of the facts and dismissed his advise - OUT OF HAND.  So between your type of negativity and Glen and Harvey's type of suppression - I've had my work cut out.  But I'm fast losing patience with these attitudes and these practices.  I assure you.

[Omnibus]

I do not expect to get any confirmation from UCT.  Fortunately it is NOT THE ONLY UNIVERSITY in the Western Cape. There are those campuses that still consider that science should be based on EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  When this is the foundation of study then we still have hope for science.

Like I said, all power to you. I really wish some solid proof comes out of those studies. It's admirable you persist in this and it's great you've found academics who are willing to look into it. Good luck and hope to hear more details about the studies as they progress. Secrecy is a dead end.

[Omnibus]

By the way, there are in this forums some very fine researchers, who also won't spare healthy criticism when it's due, such as @Omega_0, @gyulasun, @telsaalset, @broli, @poynt99, to name a few. I would strongly recommend to have your results posted here promptly so that they can be creatively discussed. This will help to speed up the research and avoid sooner the hidden obstacles which every study is accompanied by.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

By the way, there are in this forums some very fine researchers, who also won't spare healthy criticism when it's due, such as @Omega_0, @gyulasun, @telsaalset, @broli, @poynt99, to name a few. I would strongly recommend to have your results posted here promptly so that they can be creatively discussed. This will help to speed up the research and avoid sooner the hidden obstacles which every study is accompanied by.

If they, like you, consider these submissions 'healthy' then you all have a strange 'take' on good health.  While I welcome comment - I assure you I will NEVER AGAIN depend on the 'considerations' or ruling or opinion of any Open Source member unless he disclose his accreditations together with his name - is the first point.  And then - they, like you Omnibus, will need to defer to the opinion of those who are directly involved - like it or not.  And quite frankly - of your list I only know Poynty.  I'm absolutely inclined to respect his opinion.  As I understand it he considers that we have all made gross measurement errors.  Unfortunately he has not been able to point out where.  And nor do I think he's that interested to work on the subject.  And his opinion in this matter is irrelevant until he engages in a close analaysis as to WHERE is that 'fault'.  Otherwise he is simply - like you - detracting from a desirable technology.