Follow by Email

Friday, January 20, 2012

230 - some examples of that misdirection

Dear Reader,

This is again that 10th post number. There's been a slew of rather cogent counter arguments against our claim that I think should be mentioned. Far from daring to present them to the forums where the discussion is appropriate - our TROLL has posted these rather inappropriate links on my Hate Blog. Whatever next? He seems to think that any reference there may be taken seriously. But it bears mention nonetheless. It's yet another IMPECCABLE example of how it is that they manage to confuse the rather average intellects of the readers of that blog. MISDIRECTION. It's an art in the making. And it's been WAY TOO EFFECTIVE. It has KEPT THIS KNOWLEDGE OF UNITY BREACH FROM THE PUBLIC EYE FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. And this rather repetitive need of mine, to keep referencing them is that I can satisfy you all that there is, indeed, this agenda. They will continue to deny the evidence of over unity, with increasing urgency. In this particular example I suspect that the poor poster has a rather sorry need to promote a pernicious contract for a nuclear expansion program intended for the Western Cape. And he's well aware of the fact that some significant research is now being done into ours and alternate energy technologies as it relates to Rossi's E-cat claims. LOL

Here's the first link that he provided.
click here for the argument that our oscillations will result in the destruction of our transistors. THEY DON'T. THEY REMAIN COOL TO THE TOUCH WITH A GOOD 5 AMPS OF CURRENT GOING THROUGH THEM

Here's the second link
click here for the argument that MOSFETs in parallel will degrade transistor efficiency and introduce capacitance to distort measurement. OUR REQUIRED Q-ARRAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSISTORS IN PARALLEL

Here's the third link
click here for another desperate attempt at finding something against our circuit. Again he's had to rely on the hopes that you all believe we've paralleled our resistors. WE HAVE NOT

There's a fourth link which I can't open. Perhaps you could try this for yourselves. And while you're at it - you may want to look at the comment put there by ANONYMOUS who relies on a rather infantile sense of humour where any reference to 'lavatories' gets him rolling. But there again. They're none of them heavily intellectually endowed. You see for yourselves the level of stupidity that they parade - in their hopes of influencing anyone at all. I can see a significant number of the population enjoying this thread - provided only that they're heavily intellectually challenged. LOL

Here's that link.
click here - for no real reason other than to see what I'm up against. It's scarey

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

229 - physics according to poynty - ever poyntificating on the poyntless poynt

Dear Reader,

While my claim for Poynty's over unity prize hangs there - FOREVER IGNORED - in our thread at OU.com - let me see if I transpose a synopsis of Poynty Point's rather quixotic take on standard measurement protocols. He relies on this as his reasons for 'REFUTATION'. lol.

Dear Poynty Point,

With reference to this statement of yours...

"Once again, nice try Rosemary."

I explained that my exposure of your fallacies took no effort and that it was simply a waste of time. What I HIGHLIGHTED was that your arguments against our claim are based on a slew of rather adventurous and illogical postulates that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to deny our claim. Bearing in mind that you may have overlooked this post - let me schedule that list of your counter arguments - AGAIN - lest you try very hard to disassociate yourself from them.

. Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved

. A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current

. The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply

. In defiance of convention it is preferred to measure a negative voltage across a battery supply

. And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow

. Which argument is repeated - over and over

. Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols

. In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative

. No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy

. You then offer copious assurances that one can measure
a negative voltage across the battery in order to manage a negative wattage

. And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference

. together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence

. All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.

So. In the light of this comment from you...

"My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected."

then my problems are manifold. If you require me to apply YOUR LOGIC then I could, with a wide freedom of choice impose any result I choose on my data. And while that may satisfy your agenda - it would hardly stand up to scrutiny in the academic world. And that's where our paper is focused. Alternatively, I could apply the required measurement protocols AS INDEED WE DO - and then I would not satisfy your qualification requirements for your prize. You see for yourself. I am between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

And as for this...

"Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence."

I AM MOST HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. INDEED. I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A FULL DEMONSTRATION OF OUR DEVICE. But you see this Poynty Point? What earthly good would there be in showing you the evidence when you seem more than prepared to DENY the evidence? You have now given us to understand that you will impose your own math. And it's not only in the miscount of the numbers of readers of this thread that you show a rather poor aptitude for this. It's also grossly evidenced in those arguments of yours that you're trying so hard to make us all believe.

Help me out here Poynty. We're trying to progress this technology. It would be a crying shame to think that you could suppress this by simply denying our very easily demonstrable results.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie


For some reason he REFUSES to ENGAGE? LOL. If I didn't know better I'd think he's avoiding the issue so that he can hold onto his prize money? Whatever next?

Kindest regards, Readers. And I trust you'll indulge me this 'for the record' number. Else it may just get lost in all that verbiage. And I'd be sorry to lose these arguments.
Rosemary