Dear Reader,
I'm only going to post here again when I've completed our paper on gravity. I'll do a synopsis of the forum discussions when I've got the time. I also intend to post an open letter to challenge OUR.com and OU.com for that prize. But right now I don't have the appetite.
Inevitably the thread was locked. The excuse being that our measurements were questionable. They're not. It's the one thing that is absolutely NOT at question. Harti, Stefan Hartman, also threw in some irrelevant comments about questions related to 'ground'. Also spurious. They're entirely covered in our paper.
There was no excuse to locking it. He was helping Poynty Point who otherwise would have had to evaluate the circuit as a claim for his prize. If Poynty had to cough up then Harti would have had to follow suit. And clearly, Poynty has not got the required competence to evaluate anything at all. As an example he claims that a battery can deliver a negative current flow and that current from a battery can flow through a MOSFET's gate and entirely bypass the source leg of that resistor. Both of which arguments are absurd. It's a profoundly elementary oversight. But it is, nonetheless the kind of assumption that can be made from just a superficial evaluation of the circuit. Frankly I didn't help the cause by posting over a previous post that included my own gross measurement's error. I should just have done some editing prior to posting it. I blame my poor eyesight. And possibly a poor aptitude for simple arithmetic. LOL.
Anyway - dear reader. I've got work to do. Frankly I was most anxious to wind that thread up. And it was taking way longer than I intended. So Harti did me a favour. I'll simply continue - as ever - in Rossi's thread. Much more effective. The only downside was that I didn't get the chance to publish that paper. Which - I think - was where the urgency crept into that sudden closure that Harti managed. There are no precedents - other to my own threads. They're repeatedly locked. All others can propose anything they like - including the existence of space craft, aliens, or even as unrelated as identity theft. But for some reason - our poor little claim is simply NOT TOLERATED. Interestingly too, it was generating an enormous readership - at roughly a 1000 hits a day. And that too - was not sitting comfortably with our trolls.
But I do not think that Harti is a troll. I sincerely believe that he's working for over unity. Eventually he may understand the subtleties of what we're pointing to. At the moment he has no clue. He pointed me to a video by John Bedini - showing a synopsis of the work that Bedini does. The joke of it is that our thesis is PRECISELY in line with Bedini's proposals and PRECISELY in line with Tesla's. So is our evidence. I keep telling them we've got nothing new. The only difference - is that we've found the EXPLANATION within our standard references. That 'radiant energy' that they keep referencing? Well. That's also what we're talking about.
And as for Poynty et al? They've won. Hands down. I knew this before I started out there. But I also KNOW that there are enough readers there who are now more alert to that agenda. Poynty will NEVER acknowledge over unity. And he will never relinquish his prize. And nor will Professor Steven E Jones. They're thick as thieves and discuss things behind closed doors. Rather conspiratorial - methinks. LOL
Anyway I must indeed 'press on'. I'll be back here in a little over a month. It'll take me to mid March - to finish that paper. I should have started it in January already. And I think I've been procrastinating because of the mountain that I've again got to climb. To get my poor little concepts into a form that is in any way understandable. But - once that's done then I'll be able to relax. The good news is that we have now been offered publication of those first two papers in a reviewed journal - unless Rossi publishes first. Which obviously would be our prize.
So. Cheers for now. And if any of you have access to the Good Lord - then say a prayer for us all - here in South Africa. We need all the help we can get.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
by the way - here's the link to that locked thread.
click here - it'll take you the last pages - and scroll back if any of it holds your interest.
Also I'm always concerned that Harti's going to delete my threads. He's threatened this before. But as that is no longer a concern I'll not bother to post over those posts of mine.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
253 - a red alert
Dear Reader,
I've been busy - again. It seems that I'm not quite able to leave the forum yet. Maybe soon. Meanwhile here's a significant post that I wrote today. If you haven't read it there - then you'll at least read it here.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Hi Derrick, It took a while to get back in here. I WISH Harti would attend to this. There's something SERIOUSLY wrong with his software. Every now and then it goes into a loop back mode where I can't get out of the 'home page'. And I know that there are others have the same problem. Thanks for the encouragement. But I really need to stress this. The reason that I work on these forums is because this is really the 'seed bed' of technologies that need to stay open source. And the reason I've gone to these extraordinary lengths to REFUTE those DISCLAIMERS - is that IF we don't, then as day follows night - our new technologies will be shrouded in perpetual mystery - which is a HIGHLY exploitable condition for our monopolists.
Here's a kind of analogy. You remember how 'GOOD ART' was confined to acknowledged schools. Out of that school then art was irrelevant. Then came along a whole bunch of 'rebels' who 'usurped' that art AWAY from those so called 'experts' and DID THEIR OWN THING. That's the Van Gogh's and even the Edvard Munch's of this world. And today there is 'modern art' that realises considerably more marketable value than our classicists - our David's and such like. Well. It's my considered opinion that the same thing is happening in our sciences. What a whole bunch of people are now doing is challenging our current paradigms related to physics. And this is resulting in a WELCOME ENGAGEMENT by a really wide and representative body of our public. Even amongst the so called 'experts' - those trained in physics - there's a schism that is as as wild and wide and broad and deep - and just as unbridgeable or impassable - as the Great Canyon. Everyone's off at a tangent - trying to find the 'solution' - not only to our energy crisis - but to all those PARADOXES that dog our classicists. Schism is EVERYWHERE. And the two 'strongest' schools that are clouting each other for recognition - are our String theorists versus our Quantum and Classical theorists. We, the lay public - are not aware of the niceties of that argument - but we're aware of all that doubt that's associated with science. We certainly KNOW - with growing alarm - that our scientists DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.
Now. Back to these forums where we're 'fed' - as a general daily reminder - like prayers at an assembly - is the need to DEFER to classical theory. And here's the essence of that 'schism'. The classicist CLAIMS that our four forces - are also a FULL DESCRIPTION OF EVERYTHING. And on the other hand, we have our String theorists who CLAIM that our FOUR FORCES are only an expression of A 5th and HIDDEN FORCE. AND, while the most of us are not aware of the niceties, as I mentioned, we sure as HELL know where these questions are pointing. This means that - IF indeed, those four forces are NOT THE FULL ARGUMENT - then we should, by rights question all those thermodynamic constraints that they REQUIRE. And it is my fond belief that these forums are a DIRECT RESULT of that RIGHT TO QUESTION.
BUT, by the same token, IF we allow that continued daily DIET based on the argument that NOTHING CAN EXCEED THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES, then we'll be starved out of the required engagement in this new science. These new paradigms. Which are being forged, even as we speak. But more critically, if we do NOT engage - on a hands on basis - with all the experimental and experiential evidence that we can muster - then we - the LAY PUBLIC will again lose touch with the essentials of our own logic - required to find our own reasons - and we'll DEFER to the so called EXPERT to progress our science. And history as taught us WELL. When they USURP that authority to do our thinking for us - then they ALSO engineer that science to their own best advantage. And that has not, historically, established the greatest good for the greatest number.
And I have long been intimately aware of the gross abuses of the so called 'authority' that is flaunted on these forums. They have managed to systematically DISMISS every experimental evidence of OVER UNITY that has ever dared present itself here. And the worst of it is this. It is done with a SUPREME disregard to even the ESSENCE OF ACKNOWLEDGED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS. It is no ACCIDENT - that Poynty forged those multiple and confusing ACRONYMS to support his arguments. In other words - to put it bluntly - there has been a over use of some rather contemptible, and less than scientific analyses applied to some highly credible evidence - all managed with a disgraceful abuse of our required scientific standards in order to CONFUSE those members who actively engage here. And they've got away with it for FAR TOO LONG. It makes not one iota of difference to our own claim. But I can ONLY with any authority at all - ARGUE OUR OWN CLAIM. Which is why it is topical to this thread. But the problem is far, far wider. It's as rampant as a plague - and it won't be stopped until someone stands up and confronts them. Then it can get some much needed fresh air - some much needed medication - before we can reclaim the purpose of these forums. And I am ENTIRELY committed to OPEN SOURCE. Which means that I must, unfortunately, also confront some strong personalities that have rather dominated 'popular opinion' to the detriment of science and our own best interests - especially as it relates to our need for CLEAN AND GREEN. And I intend remaining uncredentialed PRECISELY so that I can belong to this new and emerging school that is NOT dependent on those classical conclusions.
I hope this post won't be construed as a rant. It's meant to be a red alert.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
I've been busy - again. It seems that I'm not quite able to leave the forum yet. Maybe soon. Meanwhile here's a significant post that I wrote today. If you haven't read it there - then you'll at least read it here.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Hi Derrick, It took a while to get back in here. I WISH Harti would attend to this. There's something SERIOUSLY wrong with his software. Every now and then it goes into a loop back mode where I can't get out of the 'home page'. And I know that there are others have the same problem. Thanks for the encouragement. But I really need to stress this. The reason that I work on these forums is because this is really the 'seed bed' of technologies that need to stay open source. And the reason I've gone to these extraordinary lengths to REFUTE those DISCLAIMERS - is that IF we don't, then as day follows night - our new technologies will be shrouded in perpetual mystery - which is a HIGHLY exploitable condition for our monopolists.
Here's a kind of analogy. You remember how 'GOOD ART' was confined to acknowledged schools. Out of that school then art was irrelevant. Then came along a whole bunch of 'rebels' who 'usurped' that art AWAY from those so called 'experts' and DID THEIR OWN THING. That's the Van Gogh's and even the Edvard Munch's of this world. And today there is 'modern art' that realises considerably more marketable value than our classicists - our David's and such like. Well. It's my considered opinion that the same thing is happening in our sciences. What a whole bunch of people are now doing is challenging our current paradigms related to physics. And this is resulting in a WELCOME ENGAGEMENT by a really wide and representative body of our public. Even amongst the so called 'experts' - those trained in physics - there's a schism that is as as wild and wide and broad and deep - and just as unbridgeable or impassable - as the Great Canyon. Everyone's off at a tangent - trying to find the 'solution' - not only to our energy crisis - but to all those PARADOXES that dog our classicists. Schism is EVERYWHERE. And the two 'strongest' schools that are clouting each other for recognition - are our String theorists versus our Quantum and Classical theorists. We, the lay public - are not aware of the niceties of that argument - but we're aware of all that doubt that's associated with science. We certainly KNOW - with growing alarm - that our scientists DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.
Now. Back to these forums where we're 'fed' - as a general daily reminder - like prayers at an assembly - is the need to DEFER to classical theory. And here's the essence of that 'schism'. The classicist CLAIMS that our four forces - are also a FULL DESCRIPTION OF EVERYTHING. And on the other hand, we have our String theorists who CLAIM that our FOUR FORCES are only an expression of A 5th and HIDDEN FORCE. AND, while the most of us are not aware of the niceties, as I mentioned, we sure as HELL know where these questions are pointing. This means that - IF indeed, those four forces are NOT THE FULL ARGUMENT - then we should, by rights question all those thermodynamic constraints that they REQUIRE. And it is my fond belief that these forums are a DIRECT RESULT of that RIGHT TO QUESTION.
BUT, by the same token, IF we allow that continued daily DIET based on the argument that NOTHING CAN EXCEED THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES, then we'll be starved out of the required engagement in this new science. These new paradigms. Which are being forged, even as we speak. But more critically, if we do NOT engage - on a hands on basis - with all the experimental and experiential evidence that we can muster - then we - the LAY PUBLIC will again lose touch with the essentials of our own logic - required to find our own reasons - and we'll DEFER to the so called EXPERT to progress our science. And history as taught us WELL. When they USURP that authority to do our thinking for us - then they ALSO engineer that science to their own best advantage. And that has not, historically, established the greatest good for the greatest number.
And I have long been intimately aware of the gross abuses of the so called 'authority' that is flaunted on these forums. They have managed to systematically DISMISS every experimental evidence of OVER UNITY that has ever dared present itself here. And the worst of it is this. It is done with a SUPREME disregard to even the ESSENCE OF ACKNOWLEDGED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS. It is no ACCIDENT - that Poynty forged those multiple and confusing ACRONYMS to support his arguments. In other words - to put it bluntly - there has been a over use of some rather contemptible, and less than scientific analyses applied to some highly credible evidence - all managed with a disgraceful abuse of our required scientific standards in order to CONFUSE those members who actively engage here. And they've got away with it for FAR TOO LONG. It makes not one iota of difference to our own claim. But I can ONLY with any authority at all - ARGUE OUR OWN CLAIM. Which is why it is topical to this thread. But the problem is far, far wider. It's as rampant as a plague - and it won't be stopped until someone stands up and confronts them. Then it can get some much needed fresh air - some much needed medication - before we can reclaim the purpose of these forums. And I am ENTIRELY committed to OPEN SOURCE. Which means that I must, unfortunately, also confront some strong personalities that have rather dominated 'popular opinion' to the detriment of science and our own best interests - especially as it relates to our need for CLEAN AND GREEN. And I intend remaining uncredentialed PRECISELY so that I can belong to this new and emerging school that is NOT dependent on those classical conclusions.
I hope this post won't be construed as a rant. It's meant to be a red alert.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
233 - more on the forum disinformation program - and, the good news is that I'm nearly done there
Dear Reader,
I'm nearly at the close of that thread. I'm just waiting to hear from Prof Steven E Jones and will then do a full summation. I'm hoping that Harti will allow me to post our entire paper on that thread. And then he can lock it.
Then I can get back here and concentrate on our thesis. I made that detour ONLY because I have been claiming that there's a 'conspiracy' against any over unity claims. All such conspiracies are considered somewhat fanciful. And in truth I also thought that it was somewhat improbable. I was advised by a Dr Stiffler in a very cryptic message that 'they will get to you'. Indeed they did.
If you ever take the trouble to dip into Over Unity Research.com - there's a thread on my circuit - where one poster, MileHigh - picks up the theme that I'm deluded - fanciful and unable to read my own circuit. What's rather ironic, in point of fact is that it's they themselves who were rather ill equipped to argue the circuit - precisely because they could not read it. Not only that - but poor Poynty Point was trying to argue that our LeCroy was skewing its voltage by virtue of IMPEDANCE? I'm not sure which option is more disturbing. That he believes it - or that he simply hopes the readers there do. Either way - it shows a rather reckless reliance on public ignorance. And more disturbing yet is that Poynty has been barging into the threads of many experimenters to apply this rather flawed measurements analysis to anything and everything that smells of promise. The worst of it is that until this exercise of mine I think the readers there made the assumption that he knew whereof he spoke. Well. Clearly he has no clue. Or he has rather grossly underestimated the public's level of knowledge. That he also grossly underestimated my own is possibly forgivable. Even I admit to knowing very little about electronics. But I know more than enough about the fundamentals of physics - to compensate. And I hope I've injected those countermands of his - with some modicum of logic. Sorely lacking in his own arguments. And sorely lacking in all previous analysis.
For some reason - they seem to regard it as REQUIRED that one first buries the sense of an argument behind undefined acronyms - to spread, not only rampant confusion, but to seem to be privy to a rather higher level of knowledge where everything is IMPLIED and nothing stated. It's the greatest weakness that there is going at the moment. If any science is not CLEAR - then clearly it's NOT SCIENCE - is the maxim.
Anyway, dear, dear readers. I have to make a whole lot of those 'for the record posts'. But then I'm done with that thread. And then I'll just go back to rabbiting on about physics theory - and lending whatever support I possibly can to Andrea Rossi's remarkable breakthroughs. Our fight is nearly done. And I'd put money on it that his technology will be available to us ALL - very very soon now. That is going to be the REAL revolution. Can't wait.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I'm nearly at the close of that thread. I'm just waiting to hear from Prof Steven E Jones and will then do a full summation. I'm hoping that Harti will allow me to post our entire paper on that thread. And then he can lock it.
Then I can get back here and concentrate on our thesis. I made that detour ONLY because I have been claiming that there's a 'conspiracy' against any over unity claims. All such conspiracies are considered somewhat fanciful. And in truth I also thought that it was somewhat improbable. I was advised by a Dr Stiffler in a very cryptic message that 'they will get to you'. Indeed they did.
If you ever take the trouble to dip into Over Unity Research.com - there's a thread on my circuit - where one poster, MileHigh - picks up the theme that I'm deluded - fanciful and unable to read my own circuit. What's rather ironic, in point of fact is that it's they themselves who were rather ill equipped to argue the circuit - precisely because they could not read it. Not only that - but poor Poynty Point was trying to argue that our LeCroy was skewing its voltage by virtue of IMPEDANCE? I'm not sure which option is more disturbing. That he believes it - or that he simply hopes the readers there do. Either way - it shows a rather reckless reliance on public ignorance. And more disturbing yet is that Poynty has been barging into the threads of many experimenters to apply this rather flawed measurements analysis to anything and everything that smells of promise. The worst of it is that until this exercise of mine I think the readers there made the assumption that he knew whereof he spoke. Well. Clearly he has no clue. Or he has rather grossly underestimated the public's level of knowledge. That he also grossly underestimated my own is possibly forgivable. Even I admit to knowing very little about electronics. But I know more than enough about the fundamentals of physics - to compensate. And I hope I've injected those countermands of his - with some modicum of logic. Sorely lacking in his own arguments. And sorely lacking in all previous analysis.
For some reason - they seem to regard it as REQUIRED that one first buries the sense of an argument behind undefined acronyms - to spread, not only rampant confusion, but to seem to be privy to a rather higher level of knowledge where everything is IMPLIED and nothing stated. It's the greatest weakness that there is going at the moment. If any science is not CLEAR - then clearly it's NOT SCIENCE - is the maxim.
Anyway, dear, dear readers. I have to make a whole lot of those 'for the record posts'. But then I'm done with that thread. And then I'll just go back to rabbiting on about physics theory - and lending whatever support I possibly can to Andrea Rossi's remarkable breakthroughs. Our fight is nearly done. And I'd put money on it that his technology will be available to us ALL - very very soon now. That is going to be the REAL revolution. Can't wait.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, January 23, 2012
232 - another summation based on countering the counter arguments
Dear Reader,
These points have been covered in open discussion - but they really need to be held in full focus. We claim that we are measuring a negative wattage on our tests - at a variety of different settings to the applied frequency - and with a scheduled list of recorded data that would stretch from here to the moon. Effectively we have positioned those two transistors at a kind of 'mirror image' to each other and then applied the probe from the signal generator to Q1 and its ground to Q2. As shown in both the following circuits.
The red pencilled lines are intended to show the commonality of the switches. Therefore, in effect, one has those transistors arranged that the battery can access either Q1 or Q2 - REGARDLESS. Which argument then claims that there is ALWAYS a path for the positive flow of current from the battery supply. And therefore too - the battery is NEVER disconnected. Which, by default - means that when we measure energy being delivered from the supply - which is that voltage measured above zero - then correctly it IS INDEED being discharged by the battery. This conclusion makes not the slightest difference to our claim. We still measure that negative wattage number. There is still, evidentially, more energy being delivered back to the battery than was first supply by the battery. But there's a nicety that needs to be factored in which goes to the real anomaly and not to standard assumptions about anything at all. Lest we lose the significance of this data - I'm taking the trouble to show this here - as it's been argued on the forum.
This may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection. The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain. Which is standard convention. Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls. And it SERIOUSLY falls. It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5. Given a 6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts. At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage. And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative. WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING. In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT. Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating. We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle. But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.
Now. If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second. And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery. For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second - during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS. IN A MOMENT? That's hardly likely. And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours? As are ours? And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time. DO THE MATH. It beggars belief. In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.
NOW. You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage. Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS. Well. It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this. And in a way he's right. There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO? What gives? Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse. His own simulation software measures it. Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH.
But science is science. And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere. So. How to explain it? How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V? Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope - that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply. Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail +0.5V. Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material. WHICH IS REASONABLE. Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.
OR DOES IT? If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load. Over time. In fact over the duration. It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating. It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER. Not even under fully discharged conditions. So? Again. WHAT GIVES? Clearly something else is coming into the equation. Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all. And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY. Well within their capabilities.
SO. BACK TO THE QUESTION? WHAT GIVES? We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply. BUT. By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches. It's at the Drain rail. And its ground is on the negative or Source rail. And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground. Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING? UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit? Unless the switch is CLOSED. IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED? In which case? Would it not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit? IF so. Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit. It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED. It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit? In which case? We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP. What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components. Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source.
It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you. Sorry this took so long. It needs all those words to explain this. The worst of it is that there's more to come.
Kindest regards as ever,
Rosemary
These points have been covered in open discussion - but they really need to be held in full focus. We claim that we are measuring a negative wattage on our tests - at a variety of different settings to the applied frequency - and with a scheduled list of recorded data that would stretch from here to the moon. Effectively we have positioned those two transistors at a kind of 'mirror image' to each other and then applied the probe from the signal generator to Q1 and its ground to Q2. As shown in both the following circuits.
The red pencilled lines are intended to show the commonality of the switches. Therefore, in effect, one has those transistors arranged that the battery can access either Q1 or Q2 - REGARDLESS. Which argument then claims that there is ALWAYS a path for the positive flow of current from the battery supply. And therefore too - the battery is NEVER disconnected. Which, by default - means that when we measure energy being delivered from the supply - which is that voltage measured above zero - then correctly it IS INDEED being discharged by the battery. This conclusion makes not the slightest difference to our claim. We still measure that negative wattage number. There is still, evidentially, more energy being delivered back to the battery than was first supply by the battery. But there's a nicety that needs to be factored in which goes to the real anomaly and not to standard assumptions about anything at all. Lest we lose the significance of this data - I'm taking the trouble to show this here - as it's been argued on the forum.
This may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection. The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain. Which is standard convention. Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls. And it SERIOUSLY falls. It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5. Given a 6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts. At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage. And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative. WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING. In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT. Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating. We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle. But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.
Now. If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second. And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery. For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second - during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS. IN A MOMENT? That's hardly likely. And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours? As are ours? And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time. DO THE MATH. It beggars belief. In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.
NOW. You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage. Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS. Well. It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this. And in a way he's right. There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO? What gives? Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse. His own simulation software measures it. Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH.
But science is science. And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere. So. How to explain it? How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V? Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope - that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply. Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail +0.5V. Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material. WHICH IS REASONABLE. Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.
OR DOES IT? If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load. Over time. In fact over the duration. It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating. It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER. Not even under fully discharged conditions. So? Again. WHAT GIVES? Clearly something else is coming into the equation. Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all. And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY. Well within their capabilities.
SO. BACK TO THE QUESTION? WHAT GIVES? We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply. BUT. By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches. It's at the Drain rail. And its ground is on the negative or Source rail. And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground. Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING? UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit? Unless the switch is CLOSED. IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED? In which case? Would it not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit? IF so. Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit. It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED. It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit? In which case? We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP. What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components. Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source.
It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you. Sorry this took so long. It needs all those words to explain this. The worst of it is that there's more to come.
Kindest regards as ever,
Rosemary
231 - a summation in favour of open source - with some few caveats
Also for the record. But possibly a fairly significant comment
Guys, just as a quick synopsis of things.
There have been those personalities - such as Poynty Point who have gone to some considerable trouble to deny claims of over unity. I can't possibly cover them all. And nor can I talk with any authority about any of them other than our own claim. Our own experience is that they first established the credentials of the claimant. When they're satisfied that this is lacking - then they deny the intelligence of the claimant. When they've manged this then they attack the sanity of the claimant. And so it goes. In our case - it was rather more urgent - as they also had to attack the technology as we had measured proof. And lots of it. In which case it was REQUIRED that I be considerably more stupid and less competent and more lunatic - than average. But any idiosyncratic aptitudes or failings - of any of those claimants - have NOTHING to do with the issue.
You will notice how Poynty Point seldom addresses me directly, and when he does - it is with a kind of offensive imperiousness. That's designed to encourage all members and readers to share that disrespect. Which is why - for instance - that curious Chris felt free to parade his ill mannered, injudicious rejections of our claim with such little preparation and even less justification. Why Cloxxki feels free to publicly claim that not only am I a FRAUD but a LAZY FRAUD. What the professional 'nay sayers' - those leading the attack - depend on is that the sheer weight of their opinion - appropriate or otherwise - will CRUSH the claimant and with it claim. And therefore, the ONLY thing that they will not communicate - is any residual evidence of any kind of respect at all. Which is extraordinary. All that is ever attempted by any claimant - any experimentalist - any researcher - is that the issue under consideration - the science related to the claim - is also CONSIDERED and DISCUSSED. And THAT - most certainly - does NOT warrant the parade of slanderous and abusive criticism that follows in its wake.
My intention in claiming those prizes is simply based on our evidence that INDEED - we have a valid claim. Over Unity is alive and well. And denial of his is now positively obsolete. At it's least we have scheduled some anomalies that are not consistent with conventional prediction. That I have not claimed these prizes before is because, frankly, I'm not really that interested in actually getting hold of them. Nor are any of our collaborators. What we decided was to use our rights to claim this as an excuse to EXPOSE the fact that not only have those unity barriers been defeated - but THAT their denial of the fact is in line with their AGENDA and NOT with the evidence. Poynty's own SIMULATIONS PROVE OUR CLAIM. He therefore needs must re-invent the entire basis of electrical energy measurement - in order to deny this. And by forcing him to do any public evaluation at all - EXPOSES these rather absurd mathematical inventions. He is, most assuredly, depending on the combined ignorance of the members in standard measurement protocols. Else there would be a howl of protests at the absurdities he's expecting you all to endorse.
And my need to remind you that our claim is valid is precisely because there are many of you who are not aware of this fact. There is an assumption that the unity barrier is still up and functioning. It's not. It's dead and buried. I very much doubt that ours was the first evidence. It certainly wont be the last. But more to the point - our own technology - albeit having some nascent potentials at delivering higher energy - is already virtually archaic at its inception. With Rossi's breakthroughs - I KNOW that there will be many, many more. And it does not help to say that Rossi's invention is not OU - it's argued as LENR. LENR is, itself, not fully understood. Or fully explained. We're at the beginning. The door is hardly opened. And that's all a very good thing. But this progress is never going to 'take off' until those breaches are considered. Very, very carefully. Nothing to do with the claimant. Everything to do with the claim. Otherwise the perfectly excellent objectives of these forums - will be heavily compromised. And they'll simply fade into the background noise - in the face of the real developmental thrust that will be OFF forum. Which would be sad. Open source is something to be protected. And it has a potential dynamic to lead in this new science - rather than simply fade from view.
Which may or may not explain this detour in our own thread objectives. And hopefully - for once - I'll be able to expose that 'agenda' - be it financed or otherwise.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Guys, just as a quick synopsis of things.
There have been those personalities - such as Poynty Point who have gone to some considerable trouble to deny claims of over unity. I can't possibly cover them all. And nor can I talk with any authority about any of them other than our own claim. Our own experience is that they first established the credentials of the claimant. When they're satisfied that this is lacking - then they deny the intelligence of the claimant. When they've manged this then they attack the sanity of the claimant. And so it goes. In our case - it was rather more urgent - as they also had to attack the technology as we had measured proof. And lots of it. In which case it was REQUIRED that I be considerably more stupid and less competent and more lunatic - than average. But any idiosyncratic aptitudes or failings - of any of those claimants - have NOTHING to do with the issue.
You will notice how Poynty Point seldom addresses me directly, and when he does - it is with a kind of offensive imperiousness. That's designed to encourage all members and readers to share that disrespect. Which is why - for instance - that curious Chris felt free to parade his ill mannered, injudicious rejections of our claim with such little preparation and even less justification. Why Cloxxki feels free to publicly claim that not only am I a FRAUD but a LAZY FRAUD. What the professional 'nay sayers' - those leading the attack - depend on is that the sheer weight of their opinion - appropriate or otherwise - will CRUSH the claimant and with it claim. And therefore, the ONLY thing that they will not communicate - is any residual evidence of any kind of respect at all. Which is extraordinary. All that is ever attempted by any claimant - any experimentalist - any researcher - is that the issue under consideration - the science related to the claim - is also CONSIDERED and DISCUSSED. And THAT - most certainly - does NOT warrant the parade of slanderous and abusive criticism that follows in its wake.
My intention in claiming those prizes is simply based on our evidence that INDEED - we have a valid claim. Over Unity is alive and well. And denial of his is now positively obsolete. At it's least we have scheduled some anomalies that are not consistent with conventional prediction. That I have not claimed these prizes before is because, frankly, I'm not really that interested in actually getting hold of them. Nor are any of our collaborators. What we decided was to use our rights to claim this as an excuse to EXPOSE the fact that not only have those unity barriers been defeated - but THAT their denial of the fact is in line with their AGENDA and NOT with the evidence. Poynty's own SIMULATIONS PROVE OUR CLAIM. He therefore needs must re-invent the entire basis of electrical energy measurement - in order to deny this. And by forcing him to do any public evaluation at all - EXPOSES these rather absurd mathematical inventions. He is, most assuredly, depending on the combined ignorance of the members in standard measurement protocols. Else there would be a howl of protests at the absurdities he's expecting you all to endorse.
And my need to remind you that our claim is valid is precisely because there are many of you who are not aware of this fact. There is an assumption that the unity barrier is still up and functioning. It's not. It's dead and buried. I very much doubt that ours was the first evidence. It certainly wont be the last. But more to the point - our own technology - albeit having some nascent potentials at delivering higher energy - is already virtually archaic at its inception. With Rossi's breakthroughs - I KNOW that there will be many, many more. And it does not help to say that Rossi's invention is not OU - it's argued as LENR. LENR is, itself, not fully understood. Or fully explained. We're at the beginning. The door is hardly opened. And that's all a very good thing. But this progress is never going to 'take off' until those breaches are considered. Very, very carefully. Nothing to do with the claimant. Everything to do with the claim. Otherwise the perfectly excellent objectives of these forums - will be heavily compromised. And they'll simply fade into the background noise - in the face of the real developmental thrust that will be OFF forum. Which would be sad. Open source is something to be protected. And it has a potential dynamic to lead in this new science - rather than simply fade from view.
Which may or may not explain this detour in our own thread objectives. And hopefully - for once - I'll be able to expose that 'agenda' - be it financed or otherwise.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
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
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
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
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
228 - apologies
Dear Reader,
Abject apologies. I've neglected this blog of mine for this last week. And I see that you're all still dipping in here. I'll try and do better.
To start with - I've been arguing with Poynty Point - who is, as you all know, my favourite troll. This, because unlike the most of them - he's relatively articulate. And he's exceedingly more adventurous than the most of them in 'inventing' new levels of misdirection. If you want a laugh - then here's the link. You see for yourself, I've been busy.
Click here. Not sure where it'll open in that thread. But scroll to the last pages and read it backwards. Not literally lol. But strangely appropriate that I say that. You'll see for yourselves. It's a kind of backward logic. Golly
(sorry - the previous link was wrong)
Now. I have just read an interesting post by Grumpy - the poison dwarf - on overunity research. I've tried to paste his post but for some reason it's not taking. In any event. Of interest is that he's seriously supposing that a gravitational field and magnetic field may be the same thing. Such excitement. It's the first time that I've ever seen anyone speculating on this solution other than myself. But - in retrospect - I believe Einstein also posed this. But he then threw that solution away.
Anyway, as promised. I will get back here FIRST in future. I tend to get heavily embroiled in those endless forum discussions. And as a rule they lead nowhere.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Abject apologies. I've neglected this blog of mine for this last week. And I see that you're all still dipping in here. I'll try and do better.
To start with - I've been arguing with Poynty Point - who is, as you all know, my favourite troll. This, because unlike the most of them - he's relatively articulate. And he's exceedingly more adventurous than the most of them in 'inventing' new levels of misdirection. If you want a laugh - then here's the link. You see for yourself, I've been busy.
Click here. Not sure where it'll open in that thread. But scroll to the last pages and read it backwards. Not literally lol. But strangely appropriate that I say that. You'll see for yourselves. It's a kind of backward logic. Golly
(sorry - the previous link was wrong)
Now. I have just read an interesting post by Grumpy - the poison dwarf - on overunity research. I've tried to paste his post but for some reason it's not taking. In any event. Of interest is that he's seriously supposing that a gravitational field and magnetic field may be the same thing. Such excitement. It's the first time that I've ever seen anyone speculating on this solution other than myself. But - in retrospect - I believe Einstein also posed this. But he then threw that solution away.
Anyway, as promised. I will get back here FIRST in future. I tend to get heavily embroiled in those endless forum discussions. And as a rule they lead nowhere.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, January 12, 2012
227 - tachyons vs neutrinos
Dear Reader,
it seems that there's an awakening interest in neutrinos as the particle that best conforms to that required by dark energy. This is wrong. To begin with a neutrino is a particle that has been seen and measured and even ascribed a charge ' or 'flavour' as it's known. There is no need to theorise on this particle. It's most certainly extant. Of interest is that there is experimental evidence that this can exceed light speed.
The tachyon is another animal altogether. This THEORISED particle ALWAYS exceeds light speed. Nor has it EVER been seen. For those that know this, apologies in advance. For those who don't know this - here's the thing. Light, photons - are the means by which we see the world. No accident that - according to Genesis - God first said 'let there be light'. As it turns out - light comprises photons that travel as a wave. It always travels in a straight line but given interstellar distances it also bends with gravity. It is neutral - having no evident 'polarity'. And light travels at the velocity of a little under 300 000 kilometers per second - regardless of its frequency.
Now. here's the analogy. Imagine that a red photon, for instance - has a size of 10. And then imagine that an ultra violet photon has the size say of 1. Then if the violet photon travels through space at approximately 300 000 kilometers per second as does the red photon then the ultra violet photon is actually moving at 10 times the velocity of the red photon. In the same way - imagine that a man with legs of about 2 meters long races a child with legs only half a meter long. If the child covers the same distance in an equivalent time then that child has also taken many more steps to cover that same distance. And given this example, where he covers the distance in the same time it can be said that his velocity - relative to his size - was 2/0.5 - 4 times greater than the man's.
Now. Back to the argument. For us to see something - then it first needs to interact with photons. And - given a source of light - we can see that object - almost instantaneously. But the question is this. How does one see a particle or even a field of particles if those little particles are also moving at faster than light speed? Think about it in this context. We can see a sand storm. But we cannot see the air molecules and atoms that make up the wind blowing that sand. In the same way and more specifically. We can shine a light at a permanent magnet - forever - without ever seeing the magnetic field that we KNOW is there in that magnet. We know the shape the field takes because its shape can be reflected in the interaction of iron filings. We know there's a force there because we see how it interacts with other magnets and/or with magnetisable material. But we CERTAINLY DO NOT SEE THE FIELD. And we cannot therefore do more than - perhaps propose that the field comprises particles. But the argument holds that IF the magnetic field itself is made up of really small particles - then the chances are that those particles must, therefore, be that small that light cannot find it.
Our thesis proposes that magnetic fields comprise a non-standard tachyon. It is NOT a neutrino. It is something more elusive and yet also more pervasive. I'll take this argument further when I get more time.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
it seems that there's an awakening interest in neutrinos as the particle that best conforms to that required by dark energy. This is wrong. To begin with a neutrino is a particle that has been seen and measured and even ascribed a charge ' or 'flavour' as it's known. There is no need to theorise on this particle. It's most certainly extant. Of interest is that there is experimental evidence that this can exceed light speed.
The tachyon is another animal altogether. This THEORISED particle ALWAYS exceeds light speed. Nor has it EVER been seen. For those that know this, apologies in advance. For those who don't know this - here's the thing. Light, photons - are the means by which we see the world. No accident that - according to Genesis - God first said 'let there be light'. As it turns out - light comprises photons that travel as a wave. It always travels in a straight line but given interstellar distances it also bends with gravity. It is neutral - having no evident 'polarity'. And light travels at the velocity of a little under 300 000 kilometers per second - regardless of its frequency.
Now. here's the analogy. Imagine that a red photon, for instance - has a size of 10. And then imagine that an ultra violet photon has the size say of 1. Then if the violet photon travels through space at approximately 300 000 kilometers per second as does the red photon then the ultra violet photon is actually moving at 10 times the velocity of the red photon. In the same way - imagine that a man with legs of about 2 meters long races a child with legs only half a meter long. If the child covers the same distance in an equivalent time then that child has also taken many more steps to cover that same distance. And given this example, where he covers the distance in the same time it can be said that his velocity - relative to his size - was 2/0.5 - 4 times greater than the man's.
Now. Back to the argument. For us to see something - then it first needs to interact with photons. And - given a source of light - we can see that object - almost instantaneously. But the question is this. How does one see a particle or even a field of particles if those little particles are also moving at faster than light speed? Think about it in this context. We can see a sand storm. But we cannot see the air molecules and atoms that make up the wind blowing that sand. In the same way and more specifically. We can shine a light at a permanent magnet - forever - without ever seeing the magnetic field that we KNOW is there in that magnet. We know the shape the field takes because its shape can be reflected in the interaction of iron filings. We know there's a force there because we see how it interacts with other magnets and/or with magnetisable material. But we CERTAINLY DO NOT SEE THE FIELD. And we cannot therefore do more than - perhaps propose that the field comprises particles. But the argument holds that IF the magnetic field itself is made up of really small particles - then the chances are that those particles must, therefore, be that small that light cannot find it.
Our thesis proposes that magnetic fields comprise a non-standard tachyon. It is NOT a neutrino. It is something more elusive and yet also more pervasive. I'll take this argument further when I get more time.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
226 - back on track
Dear Reader,
I apologise for the rather sarcastic post I put here yesterday. It was rather shocking to see how nasty I'm getting. Hopefully this will be more to the point.
I have attached the links to those papers that Poynty's made available. Not sure how long he's likely to leave it there. So, for those of you who have not been able to read this off the the blog posting - this should help.
I've got lots to update you on - but am a bit pressed for time. I'll give it another go later on this evening.
Kindest regards.
Rosemary
first paper
second paper
By the way - here's a BLUNT rather than sarcastic update on our position regarding that challenge to Poynty Point
It seems that Poynty Point is refuting our claim based on the pretext of his own analysis of this. Kindly note. He has NEVER replicated our experiment. His earlier work on this was confined to a simulation of the waveform where he showed equivalent results. He then - rather lamely - argued against those very results by stating that our probes should be reversed to get a true value. This is INCORRECT and flies in the face of the established protocols for the measure of electric energy.
My argument is that he should evaluate our claim in the context of standard measurement protocols. That, after all, has been a science that has been very precisely defined by very prestigious scientists EVERYWHERE. You cannot simply recommend the reversal of the probes and then seriously expect to extrapolate either the correct data or the correct analysis applied to that data. And those terms of his. PIN AND POUT. They are essentially FLAWED. Our entire argument is based on the evidence that the energy on our circuit is from what he calls POUT. Which, clearly is PIN - if, indeed, our claim is valid. The claim itself - is DENIED by those rather exotic definitions of his, that he's tried to impose on everyone here. I assure you that there are no academic electrical engineers who would adopt those 'quixotic' terminologies. And the pity of it is that the contributing members here seem to unaware of this fact.
But the truth is hidden even deeper than this facile rejection of the evidence. The most of the forum members have no idea that they're being led by the nose. Nor do they know that this unity barrier that is now comprehensively BROKEN has - in fact - been comprehensively broken ALL OVER THE PLACE. We do NOT have a monopoly on it. Where we DO have considerable authority is that we took the trouble to write this down in a format that is required by any reviewed journal. And those measurements are impeccable - as they're made by top of the range equipment. They cannot, therefore, be discounted on the basis of an inherent flaw in the extrapolation of that data.
And proof of this agenda is right here in this - our challenge to Poynty. IF indeed, he refuses to evaluate our evidence - then I'm afraid he would need to justify his reasons for this. And that would require him to DETAIL THOSE MEASUREMENTS THAT HE CLAIMS ARE ERRONEOUS. If he does not engage - it is because he DARE NOT. Right now he is trying to dismiss the claims based on his OWN replication. That's irrelevant. His tests are not OUR CLAIM. We take the test to levels where we can boil water. Indeed, we can even exceed that much energy - but for very short periods as the transistors COOK. And all this with the measurement of current flows that absolutely DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH HUGE ENERGIES. A simulation program will never show this.
In order to justify his rather RUDE dismissal - he also goes to some considerable pains to assure you all that - I am FANTASIZING. IF, I am, IF all this is the product of my imagination - IF it's some kind of reckless claim based on an improbable DREAM - then in my defense. I share that dream - that fantasy - with six qualified electrical engineers and over 100 engineers of varying skills who have either seen or replicated this - and, indeed, with our LeCroy and Tektronix oscilloscopes that keep on keeping on showing precisely these results. We are all suffering from the very same delusion.
I put it to you that Poynty relies on the wide dismissal of the very foundation to our claim - precisely because he CANNOT REFUTE THE CLAIM. And he will beg off any TRUE evaluation of this because if he did - then he would have to acknowledge over unity. Which is something that he will NEVER do. And he also, therefore needs to assure all and sundry that I am variously MAD - or delusional - ignorant - and unschooled. I don't care to comment. But he would also then have to assure you that so is everyone else associated with this paper. He has also tried to recommend that the paper is TO BE ENJOYED FOR ITS COMIC VALUE. Again I cannot comment. But in due course, and with their permission, I will schedule the names of those academics from international and famous academies - who have commended that paper on the basis of its clarity and who have, to a man, recommended publication. It's a short list, thus far - barely a handful. But that list is growing.
And here's a link that that site
click here to get to our thread - if you're that interested. lol
I apologise for the rather sarcastic post I put here yesterday. It was rather shocking to see how nasty I'm getting. Hopefully this will be more to the point.
I have attached the links to those papers that Poynty's made available. Not sure how long he's likely to leave it there. So, for those of you who have not been able to read this off the the blog posting - this should help.
I've got lots to update you on - but am a bit pressed for time. I'll give it another go later on this evening.
Kindest regards.
Rosemary
first paper
second paper
By the way - here's a BLUNT rather than sarcastic update on our position regarding that challenge to Poynty Point
It seems that Poynty Point is refuting our claim based on the pretext of his own analysis of this. Kindly note. He has NEVER replicated our experiment. His earlier work on this was confined to a simulation of the waveform where he showed equivalent results. He then - rather lamely - argued against those very results by stating that our probes should be reversed to get a true value. This is INCORRECT and flies in the face of the established protocols for the measure of electric energy.
My argument is that he should evaluate our claim in the context of standard measurement protocols. That, after all, has been a science that has been very precisely defined by very prestigious scientists EVERYWHERE. You cannot simply recommend the reversal of the probes and then seriously expect to extrapolate either the correct data or the correct analysis applied to that data. And those terms of his. PIN AND POUT. They are essentially FLAWED. Our entire argument is based on the evidence that the energy on our circuit is from what he calls POUT. Which, clearly is PIN - if, indeed, our claim is valid. The claim itself - is DENIED by those rather exotic definitions of his, that he's tried to impose on everyone here. I assure you that there are no academic electrical engineers who would adopt those 'quixotic' terminologies. And the pity of it is that the contributing members here seem to unaware of this fact.
But the truth is hidden even deeper than this facile rejection of the evidence. The most of the forum members have no idea that they're being led by the nose. Nor do they know that this unity barrier that is now comprehensively BROKEN has - in fact - been comprehensively broken ALL OVER THE PLACE. We do NOT have a monopoly on it. Where we DO have considerable authority is that we took the trouble to write this down in a format that is required by any reviewed journal. And those measurements are impeccable - as they're made by top of the range equipment. They cannot, therefore, be discounted on the basis of an inherent flaw in the extrapolation of that data.
And proof of this agenda is right here in this - our challenge to Poynty. IF indeed, he refuses to evaluate our evidence - then I'm afraid he would need to justify his reasons for this. And that would require him to DETAIL THOSE MEASUREMENTS THAT HE CLAIMS ARE ERRONEOUS. If he does not engage - it is because he DARE NOT. Right now he is trying to dismiss the claims based on his OWN replication. That's irrelevant. His tests are not OUR CLAIM. We take the test to levels where we can boil water. Indeed, we can even exceed that much energy - but for very short periods as the transistors COOK. And all this with the measurement of current flows that absolutely DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH HUGE ENERGIES. A simulation program will never show this.
In order to justify his rather RUDE dismissal - he also goes to some considerable pains to assure you all that - I am FANTASIZING. IF, I am, IF all this is the product of my imagination - IF it's some kind of reckless claim based on an improbable DREAM - then in my defense. I share that dream - that fantasy - with six qualified electrical engineers and over 100 engineers of varying skills who have either seen or replicated this - and, indeed, with our LeCroy and Tektronix oscilloscopes that keep on keeping on showing precisely these results. We are all suffering from the very same delusion.
I put it to you that Poynty relies on the wide dismissal of the very foundation to our claim - precisely because he CANNOT REFUTE THE CLAIM. And he will beg off any TRUE evaluation of this because if he did - then he would have to acknowledge over unity. Which is something that he will NEVER do. And he also, therefore needs to assure all and sundry that I am variously MAD - or delusional - ignorant - and unschooled. I don't care to comment. But he would also then have to assure you that so is everyone else associated with this paper. He has also tried to recommend that the paper is TO BE ENJOYED FOR ITS COMIC VALUE. Again I cannot comment. But in due course, and with their permission, I will schedule the names of those academics from international and famous academies - who have commended that paper on the basis of its clarity and who have, to a man, recommended publication. It's a short list, thus far - barely a handful. But that list is growing.
And here's a link that that site
click here to get to our thread - if you're that interested. lol
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
225 - on faster than light speed
Dear Reader,
I've amused myself, these last 2 days - by posting a challenge to Poynty and other forum members - for their prizes for proof of over unity. Frankly this was only motivated by another 'attack' on another poor and unsuspecting experimentalist who, in his innocence, is expecting to be aided by those members. A Serbian Professor - who prefers to remain anonymous. I simply intended showing everyone that - in truth - and even in the face of the evidence - these claims like ours, will be variously dismissed and/or denied - with our without some rather damning and inappropriate criticisms of those experimentalists.
The reactions have been varied but not entirely predictable. Poynty Point is determined to claim that the experimental evidence is flawed. Unfortunately he cannot point to anything to substantiate this. So he needs must insist that I am fantasising. It's a general reminder to the general public that my sanity is at question, as is my scientific competence, and, indeed, my faculties of logic. Certainly it's an allegation that he's persisted in for so long that those less discerning members of the public are more inclined to believe him than otherwise. Fortunately they're in the minority. And unfortunately they're patently not qualified to comment as they avoid all reference to the tests in those papers. I was expecting to see some measure of surprise. Golly
But here's the problem. HE POSTED PUBLIC LINKS TO THOSE PAPERS. Clearly - if he's trying to get everyone to think that we're mad - then the thing is NOT to publish anything at all. Because those papers are clear, logical and reasonable. They are simply designed to appeal to our academics to consider some rather anomalous results that beg some kind of explanation. They also broadly describe the thesis that predicted these results.
In any event. It's sparked a dialogue on the feasibility or otherwise of faster than light speed. And I am shocked - again - to see the rampant confusions related to theoretical physics. One poster has mentioned that a neutrino is particle but light is a wave? This is NOT correct. Light has been proved to be particulate. But both neutrinos and photons move as a wave. Here's the analogy. Take a photon the size say of 'red'. Here you have a HUGE particle moving through space at a slower speed than - let's say ultra violet - which is a smaller particle moving through space at a faster speed than red. Then you have a neutrino - also a photon in structure - but really, really small. Here you something smaller than ultra violet - but it moves through space at an EVEN FASTER RATE. The smaller the particle the faster the frequency - therefore the MORE ENERGETIC is that particle. The evidence is that they ALL travel at light speed, as a wave. And they cover precisely the same distance - but moving at varying velocities or better said - frequencies. Their frequencies vary depending on their 'size'. The point is this. THEY ALL MOVE AT PRECISELY LIGHT SPEED. But each frequency or 'rate of travel' varies with each size of each photon. I might add that - rather confusingly, the neutrino can also be charged. Not entirely neutral as its name suggests.
In any event. Only THEN, on a diminishing scale - does one get to the theorised TACHYONS - which are only PROPOSED to exceed light speed. NEVER BEEN SEEN. By definition - IF they exceed light speed, then HOW DOES ONE FIND THEM?
Another poster has suggested that Einstein himself suggested that his General Theory of Relativity would be disproved. What nonsense. Einstein has NEVER proved this theory. It's ALWAYS been a partial theory. The ONLY theory he ever proved was SPECIAL RELATIVITY - which is a small but critical part of his general theory. Again, I am amazed that people don't know this.
Then another poster has suggested that Carl Sagan has discounted the postulate that anything can exceed light speed. Again. Carl Sagan was a brilliant astrophysicist. WHY should he discount ANY proposal that light speed can be exceeded? It's ONLY A THEORETICAL POSTULATE. What is true is that Einstein proposed that nothing material could exceed light speed. And I think he's right. But his definition of material was restricted to something measurable. And to be measurable it needs must move at some speed that can enable an interaction with light. Again. If it's faster than light speed - light cannot find it. Obviously.
What we PROVE is that IF you propose that a magnetic field comprises the material structure of those dipoles, then there are MANY anomalies that can be resolved. And ALSO. PROVIDED ONLY that all particles are composites of this fundamental particle - then our deductions point to the fact that this particle would need move at precisely 2C - which is certainly something greater than light speed. But it's only a PROPOSAL. It needs to be more thoroughly established.
I suppose what intrigues me - more than anything - is how the conceptual understanding of physics seems to elude so many of our forum members. More's the pity. I've always assumed that just about everyone knows considerably more than me. It always, therefore, surprises me when I see that - actually - they don't. Golly.
Regarding the posting of links to those papers. It hasn't worked. I'll try again with some help - in the morning. I'm thrilled to find that this can be done at all. Most gratifying. Hans, for one will be pleased. But the truth is that many of you have asked for this. Sorry I didn't rally before. I didn't know it could be done.
Kindest regards,
rosemary
I've amused myself, these last 2 days - by posting a challenge to Poynty and other forum members - for their prizes for proof of over unity. Frankly this was only motivated by another 'attack' on another poor and unsuspecting experimentalist who, in his innocence, is expecting to be aided by those members. A Serbian Professor - who prefers to remain anonymous. I simply intended showing everyone that - in truth - and even in the face of the evidence - these claims like ours, will be variously dismissed and/or denied - with our without some rather damning and inappropriate criticisms of those experimentalists.
The reactions have been varied but not entirely predictable. Poynty Point is determined to claim that the experimental evidence is flawed. Unfortunately he cannot point to anything to substantiate this. So he needs must insist that I am fantasising. It's a general reminder to the general public that my sanity is at question, as is my scientific competence, and, indeed, my faculties of logic. Certainly it's an allegation that he's persisted in for so long that those less discerning members of the public are more inclined to believe him than otherwise. Fortunately they're in the minority. And unfortunately they're patently not qualified to comment as they avoid all reference to the tests in those papers. I was expecting to see some measure of surprise. Golly
But here's the problem. HE POSTED PUBLIC LINKS TO THOSE PAPERS. Clearly - if he's trying to get everyone to think that we're mad - then the thing is NOT to publish anything at all. Because those papers are clear, logical and reasonable. They are simply designed to appeal to our academics to consider some rather anomalous results that beg some kind of explanation. They also broadly describe the thesis that predicted these results.
In any event. It's sparked a dialogue on the feasibility or otherwise of faster than light speed. And I am shocked - again - to see the rampant confusions related to theoretical physics. One poster has mentioned that a neutrino is particle but light is a wave? This is NOT correct. Light has been proved to be particulate. But both neutrinos and photons move as a wave. Here's the analogy. Take a photon the size say of 'red'. Here you have a HUGE particle moving through space at a slower speed than - let's say ultra violet - which is a smaller particle moving through space at a faster speed than red. Then you have a neutrino - also a photon in structure - but really, really small. Here you something smaller than ultra violet - but it moves through space at an EVEN FASTER RATE. The smaller the particle the faster the frequency - therefore the MORE ENERGETIC is that particle. The evidence is that they ALL travel at light speed, as a wave. And they cover precisely the same distance - but moving at varying velocities or better said - frequencies. Their frequencies vary depending on their 'size'. The point is this. THEY ALL MOVE AT PRECISELY LIGHT SPEED. But each frequency or 'rate of travel' varies with each size of each photon. I might add that - rather confusingly, the neutrino can also be charged. Not entirely neutral as its name suggests.
In any event. Only THEN, on a diminishing scale - does one get to the theorised TACHYONS - which are only PROPOSED to exceed light speed. NEVER BEEN SEEN. By definition - IF they exceed light speed, then HOW DOES ONE FIND THEM?
Another poster has suggested that Einstein himself suggested that his General Theory of Relativity would be disproved. What nonsense. Einstein has NEVER proved this theory. It's ALWAYS been a partial theory. The ONLY theory he ever proved was SPECIAL RELATIVITY - which is a small but critical part of his general theory. Again, I am amazed that people don't know this.
Then another poster has suggested that Carl Sagan has discounted the postulate that anything can exceed light speed. Again. Carl Sagan was a brilliant astrophysicist. WHY should he discount ANY proposal that light speed can be exceeded? It's ONLY A THEORETICAL POSTULATE. What is true is that Einstein proposed that nothing material could exceed light speed. And I think he's right. But his definition of material was restricted to something measurable. And to be measurable it needs must move at some speed that can enable an interaction with light. Again. If it's faster than light speed - light cannot find it. Obviously.
What we PROVE is that IF you propose that a magnetic field comprises the material structure of those dipoles, then there are MANY anomalies that can be resolved. And ALSO. PROVIDED ONLY that all particles are composites of this fundamental particle - then our deductions point to the fact that this particle would need move at precisely 2C - which is certainly something greater than light speed. But it's only a PROPOSAL. It needs to be more thoroughly established.
I suppose what intrigues me - more than anything - is how the conceptual understanding of physics seems to elude so many of our forum members. More's the pity. I've always assumed that just about everyone knows considerably more than me. It always, therefore, surprises me when I see that - actually - they don't. Golly.
Regarding the posting of links to those papers. It hasn't worked. I'll try again with some help - in the morning. I'm thrilled to find that this can be done at all. Most gratifying. Hans, for one will be pleased. But the truth is that many of you have asked for this. Sorry I didn't rally before. I didn't know it could be done.
Kindest regards,
rosemary
Sunday, January 8, 2012
224 - feeling more than a little tired
Dear Reader,
I have, more or less, got what I expected. Harti's come forward with his list to 'qualify' for that prize. It's a confused mishmash of testing - not so much for over unity - but for perpetual motion. I'm reasonably satisfied that with that criteria he'll be able to hang onto that prize money - forever. There's nothing about doing an accreditation on the claims in our paper - which simply and quickly get to the gullet of the anomaly. However - there may be something here that can be salvaged. I'll look into this further. Steven E Jones has, surprisingly, expressed some interest in 'replicating' and I'm still to hear what he makes of our papers. And Poynty - bless him - has been left with a mouth full of teeth and nowhere to hide. But he'll beg off. I know. And this because, unlike the others - he's well aware that our claim is entirely valid.
I, meanwhile, am still struggling with the paper on gravity - and getting nowhere fast. I have, however, established who is to do those diagrams. But I first have to draft them - obviously - and even that small task seems as elusive as the peaks of Everest. I'm growing somewhat weary.
What I am glad of though is that I've had an opportunity to remind the forum members that our claim is substantial and replicable. I think the most of them have assumed that Poynty's rather unscientific assessment carries any merit at all. This, hopefully, may disabuse them. We are very much a victim of that psyops program that is out there to kill off the hopes of our forum members.
Anyway. I'll wait and see what more comes out of this. Intriguing to see which way Poynty will wriggle. My best guess is that he'll pretend to take exception to any proposal of testing. I'm relying on it. More of that fabricated 'indignation'. It's laughably predictable. A clumsy combination of bluff - bluster and scorn - and the outright dismissal based on some minor variation to his terms and conditions or an outright dismissal of our experimental results. Or both. lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I have, more or less, got what I expected. Harti's come forward with his list to 'qualify' for that prize. It's a confused mishmash of testing - not so much for over unity - but for perpetual motion. I'm reasonably satisfied that with that criteria he'll be able to hang onto that prize money - forever. There's nothing about doing an accreditation on the claims in our paper - which simply and quickly get to the gullet of the anomaly. However - there may be something here that can be salvaged. I'll look into this further. Steven E Jones has, surprisingly, expressed some interest in 'replicating' and I'm still to hear what he makes of our papers. And Poynty - bless him - has been left with a mouth full of teeth and nowhere to hide. But he'll beg off. I know. And this because, unlike the others - he's well aware that our claim is entirely valid.
I, meanwhile, am still struggling with the paper on gravity - and getting nowhere fast. I have, however, established who is to do those diagrams. But I first have to draft them - obviously - and even that small task seems as elusive as the peaks of Everest. I'm growing somewhat weary.
What I am glad of though is that I've had an opportunity to remind the forum members that our claim is substantial and replicable. I think the most of them have assumed that Poynty's rather unscientific assessment carries any merit at all. This, hopefully, may disabuse them. We are very much a victim of that psyops program that is out there to kill off the hopes of our forum members.
Anyway. I'll wait and see what more comes out of this. Intriguing to see which way Poynty will wriggle. My best guess is that he'll pretend to take exception to any proposal of testing. I'm relying on it. More of that fabricated 'indignation'. It's laughably predictable. A clumsy combination of bluff - bluster and scorn - and the outright dismissal based on some minor variation to his terms and conditions or an outright dismissal of our experimental results. Or both. lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
223 - no answer?
Dear Reader,
It seems that Poynty and Steven E Jones are not prepared to engage in our claim for their over unity prizes. No comment at all. Not even a reply to my email. I have, however, heard from Harti - and he's sent me a list of terms and conditions in a file that I can't open. I'll see if he can resend this.
When I know more I'll get back here.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
It seems that Poynty and Steven E Jones are not prepared to engage in our claim for their over unity prizes. No comment at all. Not even a reply to my email. I have, however, heard from Harti - and he's sent me a list of terms and conditions in a file that I can't open. I'll see if he can resend this.
When I know more I'll get back here.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Saturday, January 7, 2012
222 - we claim those prizes offered by harti, poynty and steven e jones (professor?)
Dear Reader,
I think the time has come to take the 'bull by the horns'.
I am that sick of the devious and hidden pretensions buried in that declared 'object' of our over unity forums that I am now, on behalf of all free energy enthusiasts EVERYWHERE - as well as my own collaborators - determined to CLAIM THOSE PRIZES OFFERED BY no less than two forums and by Professor Steven E Jones for measured proof of over unity.
They, the prize givers will be sent our two papers that detail the experimental evidence. They will then be invited to test this apparatus on my own premises. They will be refunded their air travel should they disprove our measurements. In order to obviate ANY attempt at fabrication - three electrical engineers will be present at all demonstrations of the device that HARTI - POYNTY and STEVEN E JONES will NOT BE ABLE TO TAMPER WITH THE APPARATUS NOR MISREPRESENT THE MEASURED EVIDENCE. They will be entitled to bring their own broadband 4 channel oscilloscopes to do that measurement - which can be used subject only to the evidence of up to date calibration certificates. We will, in any event, provide our own as a reference - as required.
I guarantee that the test will not need to last more than 2 hours at the outside most - during which time I will be able to replicate the 4 tests detailed in our paper. They can, therefore, fly back the same day that they arrive. But. Should they wish to stay over before flying back - then I will accommodate them all - in relative comfort - during their stay. We South Africans are renowned for our hospitality.
If they decline - then I MUST CONCLUDE that their prizes are simply a kind of 'lure' - to the poor unsuspecting energy enthusiast who is WASTING HIS TIME if he expects endorsement from those 'great pretenders'. Whatever is left of the prize money after they've 'defrayed' their costs - lol - will be paid to a member to be nominated and chosen by all those forum members - for the purchase of measuring equipment required for that nominated members' further testing.
Proof of over unity will be in the MEASURED EVIDENCE based on the protocols detailed in that paper. Can't wait.
HOWSZZZAT!!! I'd say it's 'clean bowled'. lol
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I think the time has come to take the 'bull by the horns'.
I am that sick of the devious and hidden pretensions buried in that declared 'object' of our over unity forums that I am now, on behalf of all free energy enthusiasts EVERYWHERE - as well as my own collaborators - determined to CLAIM THOSE PRIZES OFFERED BY no less than two forums and by Professor Steven E Jones for measured proof of over unity.
They, the prize givers will be sent our two papers that detail the experimental evidence. They will then be invited to test this apparatus on my own premises. They will be refunded their air travel should they disprove our measurements. In order to obviate ANY attempt at fabrication - three electrical engineers will be present at all demonstrations of the device that HARTI - POYNTY and STEVEN E JONES will NOT BE ABLE TO TAMPER WITH THE APPARATUS NOR MISREPRESENT THE MEASURED EVIDENCE. They will be entitled to bring their own broadband 4 channel oscilloscopes to do that measurement - which can be used subject only to the evidence of up to date calibration certificates. We will, in any event, provide our own as a reference - as required.
I guarantee that the test will not need to last more than 2 hours at the outside most - during which time I will be able to replicate the 4 tests detailed in our paper. They can, therefore, fly back the same day that they arrive. But. Should they wish to stay over before flying back - then I will accommodate them all - in relative comfort - during their stay. We South Africans are renowned for our hospitality.
If they decline - then I MUST CONCLUDE that their prizes are simply a kind of 'lure' - to the poor unsuspecting energy enthusiast who is WASTING HIS TIME if he expects endorsement from those 'great pretenders'. Whatever is left of the prize money after they've 'defrayed' their costs - lol - will be paid to a member to be nominated and chosen by all those forum members - for the purchase of measuring equipment required for that nominated members' further testing.
Proof of over unity will be in the MEASURED EVIDENCE based on the protocols detailed in that paper. Can't wait.
HOWSZZZAT!!! I'd say it's 'clean bowled'. lol
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Friday, January 6, 2012
221 - another troll alert
Dear Reader,
I'm fascinated at the role that Ramset - also known as Chet - plays on all our 'so called' energy forums. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of those excellent books by Gosciny and Underzo - 'Asterix and Obelix' - a kind of social and political satire set in ancient Britain when most of the known world was controlled by the Italians. There's one devoted to Cleopatra - Julius Caesar - and has an amusing Arabian character going by the name of Kroukhut ? - not sure if I've spelled that correctly. He's an excessively obsequious little character who flatters all an sundry with a rather wanton and shameless attempt at manipulation that is also underpinned by an exaggerated self-effacement. It makes one feel mildly uncomfortable because it's transparently manipulative. And what it actually flaunts is a rather critical need for self-esteem. Oily - is probably the best description.
In any event. That's our Chet. His mission in life is to pick up the scent of any significant over unity event and then direct the better qualified 'nay sayers' to their target. In my case he managed to alert Tinsel Koala to the attack. And he did this with a bowing of the head and a scraping of the knee and a kind of awe struck deference that would have been more appropriate in the presence of a God.
Well. He's at it again. This time he's run to Poynty Point and his minions to alert them to the existence of a new threat - something to do with 'cavitation' energy? Something obscure. In any event. It's his duplicity that sticks in the craw. Here is a man who clearly has no CLUE about science, who has NEVER managed an experiment - but who is, nonetheless, anxious to earn his money as a 'detractor'. But it's all managed under the guise of a free energy enthusiast. Always ready to remind all that he's not qualified to comment. Therefore will he 'defer' to whatever it is that MileHigh - that utterly partial arbiter of some considerable notoriety - should require. But he writes with the breathless enthusiasm of a believer. Coupled with the reckless inability to measure an experiment. He pretends ... everything, with an appropriate enthusiasm. And he attempts draw attention to the the weakness of a claim by presenting it as its strength. He is considerably more dangerous than any of the trolls. Bar none. That poor experimenter hasn't a hope. He's in the capable hands of another onslaught from hell led by our dogs of war on anything that smells of a successful test.
But it's the existence of those so called 'prizes' that they all flaunt - which is so sadly inappropriate. Not only would it NOT compensate for the evidence of a unity breach - but it is simply the ONLY justification that any of them can pretend - to comment at all. Surely, by now, this is evident? The one weakness of the forum is the simple fact that none of the experimenters has a clue about measurement. And while this is absent - then regardless of the strength of their claims - it WILL be denied. And that's their mission which pivots on three golden rules. DENY AND DENY AND DENY.
The ONLY posters that I respect on that forum are DeepCut and Farrah. I am entirely satisfied also that Grumpy - bless him - is also not a troll. He's just sadly deluded. They're not ALL trolls. Just the forum is so 'thin' for want of members that the dogs barely outnumber the genuine researchers.
Anyway. That's touched on some of the concerns - from my daily reference to those threads.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
click here to read up on this
I'm fascinated at the role that Ramset - also known as Chet - plays on all our 'so called' energy forums. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of those excellent books by Gosciny and Underzo - 'Asterix and Obelix' - a kind of social and political satire set in ancient Britain when most of the known world was controlled by the Italians. There's one devoted to Cleopatra - Julius Caesar - and has an amusing Arabian character going by the name of Kroukhut ? - not sure if I've spelled that correctly. He's an excessively obsequious little character who flatters all an sundry with a rather wanton and shameless attempt at manipulation that is also underpinned by an exaggerated self-effacement. It makes one feel mildly uncomfortable because it's transparently manipulative. And what it actually flaunts is a rather critical need for self-esteem. Oily - is probably the best description.
In any event. That's our Chet. His mission in life is to pick up the scent of any significant over unity event and then direct the better qualified 'nay sayers' to their target. In my case he managed to alert Tinsel Koala to the attack. And he did this with a bowing of the head and a scraping of the knee and a kind of awe struck deference that would have been more appropriate in the presence of a God.
Well. He's at it again. This time he's run to Poynty Point and his minions to alert them to the existence of a new threat - something to do with 'cavitation' energy? Something obscure. In any event. It's his duplicity that sticks in the craw. Here is a man who clearly has no CLUE about science, who has NEVER managed an experiment - but who is, nonetheless, anxious to earn his money as a 'detractor'. But it's all managed under the guise of a free energy enthusiast. Always ready to remind all that he's not qualified to comment. Therefore will he 'defer' to whatever it is that MileHigh - that utterly partial arbiter of some considerable notoriety - should require. But he writes with the breathless enthusiasm of a believer. Coupled with the reckless inability to measure an experiment. He pretends ... everything, with an appropriate enthusiasm. And he attempts draw attention to the the weakness of a claim by presenting it as its strength. He is considerably more dangerous than any of the trolls. Bar none. That poor experimenter hasn't a hope. He's in the capable hands of another onslaught from hell led by our dogs of war on anything that smells of a successful test.
But it's the existence of those so called 'prizes' that they all flaunt - which is so sadly inappropriate. Not only would it NOT compensate for the evidence of a unity breach - but it is simply the ONLY justification that any of them can pretend - to comment at all. Surely, by now, this is evident? The one weakness of the forum is the simple fact that none of the experimenters has a clue about measurement. And while this is absent - then regardless of the strength of their claims - it WILL be denied. And that's their mission which pivots on three golden rules. DENY AND DENY AND DENY.
The ONLY posters that I respect on that forum are DeepCut and Farrah. I am entirely satisfied also that Grumpy - bless him - is also not a troll. He's just sadly deluded. They're not ALL trolls. Just the forum is so 'thin' for want of members that the dogs barely outnumber the genuine researchers.
Anyway. That's touched on some of the concerns - from my daily reference to those threads.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
click here to read up on this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)