Dear Reader
I'm posting this as it's likely to be my last at OU.Com. I'm reasonably satisfied that hereafter - I'LL BE BANNED. LOL. What a joke.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Bob Smith on Today at 05:37:31 AM
As part of the common good, every person has an inalienable right to a good reputation, and the right to defend this reputation. It is only fitting that Rosie's right to defend her reputation and the integrity of her work in this forum be upheld in accordance with the common good. To do otherwise would be to undermine the professed nature (and credibility) of this forum as a place for developing "free energy for free, independent people."
Bob
Thank you for this Bob. It is truly the most courageous statement that has EVER been made on these forums. There is a propagandising technique applied to the JEWS in Nazi Germany - where all and sundry were encouraged to report on allegations of their sub human habits, which, among other things progressed from killing Jesus Christ to - at its zenith....killing their own children. It was found to be a technique that polarised opinion AGAINST those Jews that then warranted their extermination. It required nothing more demanding than the repeated and unsupported allegation where the moral ascendancy could remain with the victimisers who were then permitted to do anything that they required up to and including the outright theft of their property and the intended extermination of that entire People. In the same way I have variously been accused of supreme ignorance, mendacity, false test representations about our claim, stupidity, mental instability and sundry social eccentricities related to my looks and even to an alleged preference to wearing pygamas in public. Harti and Poynty et al - have taught you all to disregard my postings and to treat me with the kind of disrespect that would not even be appropriate applied to a criminal - through the simple expediency of denying anything that I write and addressing me in the most abusive of manners. I am of the opinion that Harti ONLY ever invites me back to the forum to again 'scoff' at the claims - that he ignores or he rejects on grounds that we have comprehensively addressed in every paper that we have ever written. And while he does not personally engage - ON ANY LEVEL AT ALL - he permits the likes of TK and Fuzzy and a host of willing 'trolls' to do his dirty work.
This flaunted disrespect includes but is in no way limited by nor confined to a denial of the significance of an oscillation that defies any known explanation within the standard model. I won't here go into the history of this related to that replication fiasco. It would take too long. I have worked TIRELESSLY and at my OWN EXPENSE to promote this knowledge related to switching circuits that were PREDICTED in terms of a modest thesis based on a revision of Faraday's Lines of Force. I am widely accused on doing NOTHING but furthering a THEORY where I REPEATEDLY advise that I have none. Nor do any of us. We have ONLY referred to the standard model. YET I am accused of 'self promotion'.
All of which has inclined the most of our members to IGNORE my comments outside of my own thread - and to apply a level of scorn and contempt in their address of me in my own thread that - at its KINDEST can be construed as a BREACH of forum guidelines. And instead of applying the required checks Harti positively encourages input that will DETRACT from the claim and DIMINISH the results. And his ONLY excuse to do this is IF he can claim that there are measurement errors. Which is WHY he REPEATEDLY advises you all that there ARE measurement errors. The final and insufferable evidence is here again - where he asks LUC to check our results off a 555 timer where we ALREADY HAVE THESE RESULTS which we have done and MADE PUBLIC. Meanwhile the ABUSE continues off forum and I do not have the option of starting a new thread to address this abuse.
And FINALLY. We have engaged Poynt.99 AND Professor Steven E Jones in our rights to do a test that would represent conclusive proof of our over unity claim - where we would otherwise qualify for their prize. And that challenge is IGNORED. And the joke of it is this. I didn't DARE include Harti in that challenge because then I KNEW that he'd have locked my thread much sooner than he did. But frankly - RIGHT NOW - I propose that this post can be a challenge to him as well. For some reason - that I cannot understand - it seems critically important that OUR CLAIM - more than any other - IS DENIED. AND I PUT IT TO YOU ALL IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE THESIS THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM. Once that is understood - then you guys will KNOW how to do your own fishing. AND that will FINALLY put paid to any CHANCE of EXPLOITATION by ANY MONOPOLIST EVER AGAIN. Frankly, I'm not sure that this sits comfortably with the intentions of these forums. Which is the ONLY possible explanation for this inappropriate response to our claim. For some reason the 'lead out lead in theory' - the radiant energy theories - all those ill defined and inexplicable explanations are preferred OVER our simple evidence that uses nothing more exotic than INDUCTIVE LAWS.
All of which is ONLY my considered opinion. But - unhappily - it's also the only way to make sense of this EXTRAORDINARY attack that our technology warrants. I'm not at all sure how long this post will be allowed to stay here. I'm copying it and also putting it on my blog. I'll post a link hereafter. If you lose it then just google Rosemary Ainslie. It's there. Together with that HATE BLOG against me which is heavily subscribed to not only by Poynty and Laurel Gramm among others - but by someone called MOOKIE who works for ESKOM - our local utility suppliers who are also proposing to EXPAND their nuclear facilities. Go figger.
Regards,
Rosemary
Sunday, February 26, 2012
260 - the catalytic requirement for new energy was the level of greed required by our greedy energy monopolists
Dear Reader,
I've just looked in at Sterling Allen's extensive coverage of free energy. Very interesting. Especially as it relates to that SA company's development of a motor. In fact it seems that all kinds of confirmation of energy abundance is soon to explode all over the place. How good is that?
Regarding our own contributions. As ever, our technology is just a small token - compared to what's on offer. But I also believe that our modest little thesis may also be required to explain all this. Certainly one would not then have to rely on the rather unscientific and confusing concepts of 'lead out lead in' or spinning electrons - or indeed anything at all that I have EVER read - advanced by any engineer, ever. Or even those 'theories' if such they are - that are proposed by some who 'purport' to have a degree in physics. Hopefully he reads this. They're all, no doubt, brilliant engineers. But as a rule they're ALL somewhat lacking - when it come computation of power measurements - and equally lacking when it comes to theoretical physics. Certainly this applies to our forum members.
I have to wait for confirmation about the potential publication of our papers. Another whole week. And I feel this wait - rather keenly. I'm afraid our Good Lord did not equip me with much patience. As I often explain. It's my only fault. LOL. In any event, I've been trying to fill in the time by trying to tackle our thesis on gravity. It's all the more difficult as my training in physics is severely lacking. And it's about now that I feel the lack. But frankly - I can't wait for that publication. It will leave more than one academic with the rather awkward requirement to justify his/their determined rejection of our claims - in the face of the evidence. All that evidence. Which they either refused to look at - or, alternatively, to acknowledge. Retrospectively everyone will be accountable. Especially those that actively worked to diminish the evidence. Their rejections will look increasingly absurd as these technologies 'roll out' with all the dependability of advanced technology and efficient production of those devices.
Essentially what will be seen is this simple truth. An electric current can be recycled. Just that. Because that also means that ENERGY itself can be recycled. Which means that energy need not be transferred OUT of any system at all. And that has amazing implications when it comes to using energy efficiently. What I'm anxious to define is how 'gravity' fits into all this. Because then we'll also be able to use it's 'other half' which is when gravity is no longer purely 'attractive'. Like James Clerk Maxwell's equations - everyone forgot to factor in that required symmetry. And NATURE IS ALWAYS SYMMETRICAL. She tolerates everything except IMBALANCE. LOL.
It's all very exciting. And I see vindication around the corner. I do hope so, or we're going to be exploiting the benefits of LENR and now CEMF - on a 'haphazard' rather than 'predictive' basis. And that never makes for dependable science. And, as I also keep assuring you all. We've discovered NOTHING NEW. It's all in there - in the standard model. It's just that the standard model has never really been that 'standard'. What's happened is that the 'standard model' was standardised by our energy monopolists through the convenience of their research funding aimed at promoting an irreversible dependency on pollutant or inefficient energy systems. Thank God they ultimately priced themselves out the market. Else we probably would never have revisited our theories.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I've just looked in at Sterling Allen's extensive coverage of free energy. Very interesting. Especially as it relates to that SA company's development of a motor. In fact it seems that all kinds of confirmation of energy abundance is soon to explode all over the place. How good is that?
Regarding our own contributions. As ever, our technology is just a small token - compared to what's on offer. But I also believe that our modest little thesis may also be required to explain all this. Certainly one would not then have to rely on the rather unscientific and confusing concepts of 'lead out lead in' or spinning electrons - or indeed anything at all that I have EVER read - advanced by any engineer, ever. Or even those 'theories' if such they are - that are proposed by some who 'purport' to have a degree in physics. Hopefully he reads this. They're all, no doubt, brilliant engineers. But as a rule they're ALL somewhat lacking - when it come computation of power measurements - and equally lacking when it comes to theoretical physics. Certainly this applies to our forum members.
I have to wait for confirmation about the potential publication of our papers. Another whole week. And I feel this wait - rather keenly. I'm afraid our Good Lord did not equip me with much patience. As I often explain. It's my only fault. LOL. In any event, I've been trying to fill in the time by trying to tackle our thesis on gravity. It's all the more difficult as my training in physics is severely lacking. And it's about now that I feel the lack. But frankly - I can't wait for that publication. It will leave more than one academic with the rather awkward requirement to justify his/their determined rejection of our claims - in the face of the evidence. All that evidence. Which they either refused to look at - or, alternatively, to acknowledge. Retrospectively everyone will be accountable. Especially those that actively worked to diminish the evidence. Their rejections will look increasingly absurd as these technologies 'roll out' with all the dependability of advanced technology and efficient production of those devices.
Essentially what will be seen is this simple truth. An electric current can be recycled. Just that. Because that also means that ENERGY itself can be recycled. Which means that energy need not be transferred OUT of any system at all. And that has amazing implications when it comes to using energy efficiently. What I'm anxious to define is how 'gravity' fits into all this. Because then we'll also be able to use it's 'other half' which is when gravity is no longer purely 'attractive'. Like James Clerk Maxwell's equations - everyone forgot to factor in that required symmetry. And NATURE IS ALWAYS SYMMETRICAL. She tolerates everything except IMBALANCE. LOL.
It's all very exciting. And I see vindication around the corner. I do hope so, or we're going to be exploiting the benefits of LENR and now CEMF - on a 'haphazard' rather than 'predictive' basis. And that never makes for dependable science. And, as I also keep assuring you all. We've discovered NOTHING NEW. It's all in there - in the standard model. It's just that the standard model has never really been that 'standard'. What's happened is that the 'standard model' was standardised by our energy monopolists through the convenience of their research funding aimed at promoting an irreversible dependency on pollutant or inefficient energy systems. Thank God they ultimately priced themselves out the market. Else we probably would never have revisited our theories.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
259 - 'and I'm on my knees... begging for the answer'
Dear Reader,
I'm just adding this link because I LOVE this song and the singer. And because it is just SO appropriate to my struggles at the moment. Here it is again. ENJOY.
Click here. It's a treat
I'm getting close to that 10th post number - where I try and do some kind of overview and - as yet - I see that the best I EVER seem to manage is a rather verbose excuse to avoid doing the work I need to do on 'gravity' and on the 'forces' as it relates to our thesis.
I've been in discussion with my collaborators. And there seems to be a general consensus. Mainstream already have the potential of a grand unifying theory - already fully developed - provided only that we can find something that exceeds light speeds. These were theorised to be the property of tachyons - hence the tachyonic field theory But it lacks evidence. No proof of any particle being able to exceed light speed. That is - until as recently as September 2011 when CERN sent some tachyons into orbit - where their passage was monitored in real time - as far away as Italy. Here's the question. Did they record this SIMULTANEOUSLY? Or did they see the evidence IN ADVANCE? LOL. Both options are theoretically possible. And. No-ones saying.
In any event, either way - we have experimental PROOF that light speed is NOT the final frontier.
To get back to the topic. I'm trying to find a register that is not offensive to the expert - nor that is obscure to our layman. And frankly, of the two - I'm only interested in advancing our layman's understanding. For personal reasons. But I certainly want it to publishable. Which means that I must see how to cater to our experts. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I'm just adding this link because I LOVE this song and the singer. And because it is just SO appropriate to my struggles at the moment. Here it is again. ENJOY.
Click here. It's a treat
I'm getting close to that 10th post number - where I try and do some kind of overview and - as yet - I see that the best I EVER seem to manage is a rather verbose excuse to avoid doing the work I need to do on 'gravity' and on the 'forces' as it relates to our thesis.
I've been in discussion with my collaborators. And there seems to be a general consensus. Mainstream already have the potential of a grand unifying theory - already fully developed - provided only that we can find something that exceeds light speeds. These were theorised to be the property of tachyons - hence the tachyonic field theory But it lacks evidence. No proof of any particle being able to exceed light speed. That is - until as recently as September 2011 when CERN sent some tachyons into orbit - where their passage was monitored in real time - as far away as Italy. Here's the question. Did they record this SIMULTANEOUSLY? Or did they see the evidence IN ADVANCE? LOL. Both options are theoretically possible. And. No-ones saying.
In any event, either way - we have experimental PROOF that light speed is NOT the final frontier.
To get back to the topic. I'm trying to find a register that is not offensive to the expert - nor that is obscure to our layman. And frankly, of the two - I'm only interested in advancing our layman's understanding. For personal reasons. But I certainly want it to publishable. Which means that I must see how to cater to our experts. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, February 18, 2012
258 - between a rock and a hard place
Dear Reader,
I've been trying to puzzle out why Defkalion should be preferred over Rossi's number. I think it's to do with Rossi's open admission that he's relying on his 'secret sauce' to give him the market edge over his competitors - while he lines up those mass production efforts of his. There's no polite way of telling your average appliance shopper that you're withholding the 'workings' of a technology for as long as you can - in order to get the market edge. Not a good basis of advertising. We all know the 'edge' this gave Bill Gates. He came to the party with his software 'to do' list - pretty well DONE and dusted. And in a way we're still playing 'catchup'. So. If we're going to hear CONFIRMATION of this - admitted with all the candor of the excessively truthful - then we're possibly reminded of previous abuses that this advantage will likely give him.
But in Rossi's defense Sterling Allen took the trouble to emphasise this point. He first got Rossi to admit that his patents were likely to proceed rather than precede production. Which means reverse engineering is INEVITABLE. He then got Rossi to confess that his 'automated mass production' (AMP) LOL - efforts were designed to compete with the best that China's cheap labour force could offer. Which wipes out any usual pricing competition. And then Rossi was left in the unfortunate position of having to concede that his interests in withholding this elusive 'ingredient' to cooking with the E-cat - was ONLY intended to MAXIMISE his own financial advantage. Not so much philanthopy as selfishness. In other words - Sterling made sure that we, the public, were not confused by any concerns that Rossi's hard work was intended to benefit either us or the good health of the planet. He rather seems hell bent on benefitting himself somewhat. And certainly with all the focus of a greedy entrepreneur with a typical monopolistic reach to wipe out the competition. More echoes of Bill Gates.
I think we need to look at Defkalion's public statements with the same amount of circumspection - albeit NOT emphasised by Sterling. I am of the opinion that they're well aware of Rossi's 'spice' - but I also think that they're bound by contract not to reveal this to the public. Under usual circumstances that would put them out of the race and I'm sure that Rossi's aware of it. In other words - should they produce any of those generators then they would, inevitably, allow the public to learn everything they need to learn about that required recipe. This would be actionable. So. Rather than make this knowledge public they've wormed themselves around this contractual obligation by proposing to build their Hyperion - I think it's called - with a fool proof 'fail safe'. Should any buyer of their technology presume to try and find out how this works - then there's a build in system that will 'self destruct'. Implode. Leaving one without either the required knowledge - nor the required benefit of a working generator. Tough on the pocket. And more than sufficient disincentive to NOT LOOK.
It is my opinion that this intended 'safeguard' - which is ONLY likely to benefit Defkalion's own reach into a market supply stranglehold - is far more of a danger than Rossi's openly declared intention of capitalising on his technology. I live in Africa. It is well known that most of our appliances, our Geysers, our gate motors, just about everything electrical - attracts 'squatters'. I've had 'bees' at the gate. And snails. And, indeed, latterly, we're inundated with ants. They all love the shelter - come rain or shine. And they seem to thrive on all that electrical buzz. Definitely. A preferred 'abode'. Right now I've got a Gecko living in my microwave. Doing very well for himself. We're good neighbours. He eats those flies that I hate. A sort of symbiotic relationship. LOL. My point being this. Who knows what's likely to find its way into Defkalion's Hyperions? And at what point will it self destruct? Not a happy thought. And then I must pay the consequences? Because Defkalion want to breach sundry promises to Mr Andrea Rossi. And do so with impunity? Frankly of the two - I ONLY find Defkalion's open acknowledgements offensive. And deeply so. I feel that if I buy something - then I MOST CERTAINLY want to know what goes on inside. If it's my property - then I should be able to do with it AS I PLEASE. Else technically - and notwithstanding the sale - they've NOT ACTUALLY relinquished their 'ownership'. And I'm not about to share that. Not if I've paid for it.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I've been trying to puzzle out why Defkalion should be preferred over Rossi's number. I think it's to do with Rossi's open admission that he's relying on his 'secret sauce' to give him the market edge over his competitors - while he lines up those mass production efforts of his. There's no polite way of telling your average appliance shopper that you're withholding the 'workings' of a technology for as long as you can - in order to get the market edge. Not a good basis of advertising. We all know the 'edge' this gave Bill Gates. He came to the party with his software 'to do' list - pretty well DONE and dusted. And in a way we're still playing 'catchup'. So. If we're going to hear CONFIRMATION of this - admitted with all the candor of the excessively truthful - then we're possibly reminded of previous abuses that this advantage will likely give him.
But in Rossi's defense Sterling Allen took the trouble to emphasise this point. He first got Rossi to admit that his patents were likely to proceed rather than precede production. Which means reverse engineering is INEVITABLE. He then got Rossi to confess that his 'automated mass production' (AMP) LOL - efforts were designed to compete with the best that China's cheap labour force could offer. Which wipes out any usual pricing competition. And then Rossi was left in the unfortunate position of having to concede that his interests in withholding this elusive 'ingredient' to cooking with the E-cat - was ONLY intended to MAXIMISE his own financial advantage. Not so much philanthopy as selfishness. In other words - Sterling made sure that we, the public, were not confused by any concerns that Rossi's hard work was intended to benefit either us or the good health of the planet. He rather seems hell bent on benefitting himself somewhat. And certainly with all the focus of a greedy entrepreneur with a typical monopolistic reach to wipe out the competition. More echoes of Bill Gates.
I think we need to look at Defkalion's public statements with the same amount of circumspection - albeit NOT emphasised by Sterling. I am of the opinion that they're well aware of Rossi's 'spice' - but I also think that they're bound by contract not to reveal this to the public. Under usual circumstances that would put them out of the race and I'm sure that Rossi's aware of it. In other words - should they produce any of those generators then they would, inevitably, allow the public to learn everything they need to learn about that required recipe. This would be actionable. So. Rather than make this knowledge public they've wormed themselves around this contractual obligation by proposing to build their Hyperion - I think it's called - with a fool proof 'fail safe'. Should any buyer of their technology presume to try and find out how this works - then there's a build in system that will 'self destruct'. Implode. Leaving one without either the required knowledge - nor the required benefit of a working generator. Tough on the pocket. And more than sufficient disincentive to NOT LOOK.
It is my opinion that this intended 'safeguard' - which is ONLY likely to benefit Defkalion's own reach into a market supply stranglehold - is far more of a danger than Rossi's openly declared intention of capitalising on his technology. I live in Africa. It is well known that most of our appliances, our Geysers, our gate motors, just about everything electrical - attracts 'squatters'. I've had 'bees' at the gate. And snails. And, indeed, latterly, we're inundated with ants. They all love the shelter - come rain or shine. And they seem to thrive on all that electrical buzz. Definitely. A preferred 'abode'. Right now I've got a Gecko living in my microwave. Doing very well for himself. We're good neighbours. He eats those flies that I hate. A sort of symbiotic relationship. LOL. My point being this. Who knows what's likely to find its way into Defkalion's Hyperions? And at what point will it self destruct? Not a happy thought. And then I must pay the consequences? Because Defkalion want to breach sundry promises to Mr Andrea Rossi. And do so with impunity? Frankly of the two - I ONLY find Defkalion's open acknowledgements offensive. And deeply so. I feel that if I buy something - then I MOST CERTAINLY want to know what goes on inside. If it's my property - then I should be able to do with it AS I PLEASE. Else technically - and notwithstanding the sale - they've NOT ACTUALLY relinquished their 'ownership'. And I'm not about to share that. Not if I've paid for it.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Thursday, February 16, 2012
257 - the big guns
Dear Reader,
I have mentioned - on forum - that there's possibly an opportunity for a long term 'sell' of energy stocks - likely to happen in the near future. This as a consequence of the E-Cat technology. I, personally, am taking this very seriously and have earmarked a small investment for precisely this purpose.
Possibly a somewhat alarming statement to have been made public. I see now that our thread has contributions from a dedicated anti over unity enthusiast. Tinsel Koala. The prose is less than typically 'his style' and I think the the 'big boys' have been colluding and collaborating. I also think the object is to throw as much 'doubt' as they can manage on Rossi's results as they've done on my own. God knows what they'll do with the Greek arm of this that is already moving to compete with Rossi. Nor do I know what they'll do with all the experimental evidence that's springing up all over the place. I can always measure the degree of panic by the degree of resistance against any evidence. It's interesting - to put it mildly.
And, frankly, when one considers the facts, then I think we'll be looking at a frantic repricing of our oil suppliers simply to stay in business. To compete they'll have to reduce their costs by something in the order of 600%. Perhaps, at last, we'll be looking at the RARE historical event of a fall in the cost of production and an attendant fall in the cost of goods. I do hope so. But it's going to be rather chaotic unless our respective Governments put some kind of checks and balances into play.
At the risk of alarming you all even further. Consider this. It also seems that there's an easy transmutation of elements through this LENR. If so, we may be looking at a kind of latter day alchemy. I know that Sir Isaac Newton would have been engaged. His interests in this are legendary. And God alone knows what that will do to the price of metals.
All very intriguing. My best guess is that the thread related to Rossi will be locked in fairly short order. We'll see. In the event that it is locked - then we'll finally know the actual purpose of those forums. And it won't be for the promotion of over unity or clean energy. Then it will be seen as a ruse to dupe us poor enthusiasts to engage as a captive audience for their propagandising.
It's getting a little bit scarey.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I have mentioned - on forum - that there's possibly an opportunity for a long term 'sell' of energy stocks - likely to happen in the near future. This as a consequence of the E-Cat technology. I, personally, am taking this very seriously and have earmarked a small investment for precisely this purpose.
Possibly a somewhat alarming statement to have been made public. I see now that our thread has contributions from a dedicated anti over unity enthusiast. Tinsel Koala. The prose is less than typically 'his style' and I think the the 'big boys' have been colluding and collaborating. I also think the object is to throw as much 'doubt' as they can manage on Rossi's results as they've done on my own. God knows what they'll do with the Greek arm of this that is already moving to compete with Rossi. Nor do I know what they'll do with all the experimental evidence that's springing up all over the place. I can always measure the degree of panic by the degree of resistance against any evidence. It's interesting - to put it mildly.
And, frankly, when one considers the facts, then I think we'll be looking at a frantic repricing of our oil suppliers simply to stay in business. To compete they'll have to reduce their costs by something in the order of 600%. Perhaps, at last, we'll be looking at the RARE historical event of a fall in the cost of production and an attendant fall in the cost of goods. I do hope so. But it's going to be rather chaotic unless our respective Governments put some kind of checks and balances into play.
At the risk of alarming you all even further. Consider this. It also seems that there's an easy transmutation of elements through this LENR. If so, we may be looking at a kind of latter day alchemy. I know that Sir Isaac Newton would have been engaged. His interests in this are legendary. And God alone knows what that will do to the price of metals.
All very intriguing. My best guess is that the thread related to Rossi will be locked in fairly short order. We'll see. In the event that it is locked - then we'll finally know the actual purpose of those forums. And it won't be for the promotion of over unity or clean energy. Then it will be seen as a ruse to dupe us poor enthusiasts to engage as a captive audience for their propagandising.
It's getting a little bit scarey.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
256 - when the penny finally falls
Dear Reader,
I just want to make a quick reference to something that I find rather amusing.
I think it took about 40 pages of discussion between myself and Poynty Point for Poynty to finally realise that a current discharge from a battery REQUIRES a path through the source leg of a transistors. The joke is that he had the unequivocal support of MileHigh, The Boss, Bubba Gravock, Gyula, Tinsel Koala, - and the unspoken support of all those members who didn't complain. Which support was for the ASSUMPTION that the battery could pass directly onto the Gate - somehow possibly by crossing about 4 inches of space - and land on the signal terminal at the other side of the circuit.
In all those pages and in every single post I made in reference to this - I was either, mocked, denied or ignored. When I posted the waveforms that also denied this assumption - they were also IGNORED. No comment made. And when they did protest their protests were REALLY LOUD. REALLY SCORNFUL. Because, as ever they made the rather reckless assumption that they KNOW BEST and I KNOW NOTHING AT ALL.
And? When the penny finally dropped...? Nothing. Just silence. No-one said anything. It was a quiet filled with all the 'sweet stillness of the evening hour'. It was also suggestive of a certain 'surprise'? Possibly? Can't be sure. I know Poynty wasn't surprised. He was just hoping no-one would notice the schematic or agree with me. Certainly he saw this. He saw this that first time when he kept posting the schematic detail. And asking the same question. 'What is on your actual circuit?'. LOL. SO. All this time while they were shouting that the battery discharge was responsible for at least one half of each oscillation - there was a noisy, clamorous DENIAL of my claim. And then? Just this silence.
It seems that NOT A ONE OF THEM is man enough nor brave enough to ADMIT AN OVERSIGHT. YET. When I genuinely acknowledge an oversight - NOTWITHSTANDING - THEN? They come at one like a pack of dogs. The one laughs. The others mock. Another recommends 'SUICIDE'. Then there's a no holds barred. A NEW HOWL of PROTEST. It seems that I have thereby NEGATED the very foundations of our claim.
It's all very Curious. In fact curious doesn't cut it. It is positively disgusting. Only partially more so than Poynty's earlier intellectual abuse where he attempted to recommend that a battery discharges a NEGATIVE current flow. This argument was also followed by that same SILENCE. It would be JUST SO nice to see ANY kind of intellectual honesty among any of those members. They can't all be employed by The Boss? Surely? But they absolutely can't manage it. There isn't enough character. Not an ounce of decency amongst any of them. They're just talking heads - some of whom are well paid by those with vested interests to KILL over unity. And some of whom are UTTERLY duped by those well paid talking heads. None have the strength of character nor the conviction to own up to their identities let alone their oversights. And certainly none are man enough to apologise.
Anyway. I just thought I'd alert you all to what seems to be a new and interesting scientific fact. When the penny falls - it MAKES NO NOISE AT ALL. How's that for an anomaly?
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I was alerted to a need to edit this. LOL. Have now done so.
I just want to make a quick reference to something that I find rather amusing.
I think it took about 40 pages of discussion between myself and Poynty Point for Poynty to finally realise that a current discharge from a battery REQUIRES a path through the source leg of a transistors. The joke is that he had the unequivocal support of MileHigh, The Boss, Bubba Gravock, Gyula, Tinsel Koala, - and the unspoken support of all those members who didn't complain. Which support was for the ASSUMPTION that the battery could pass directly onto the Gate - somehow possibly by crossing about 4 inches of space - and land on the signal terminal at the other side of the circuit.
In all those pages and in every single post I made in reference to this - I was either, mocked, denied or ignored. When I posted the waveforms that also denied this assumption - they were also IGNORED. No comment made. And when they did protest their protests were REALLY LOUD. REALLY SCORNFUL. Because, as ever they made the rather reckless assumption that they KNOW BEST and I KNOW NOTHING AT ALL.
And? When the penny finally dropped...? Nothing. Just silence. No-one said anything. It was a quiet filled with all the 'sweet stillness of the evening hour'. It was also suggestive of a certain 'surprise'? Possibly? Can't be sure. I know Poynty wasn't surprised. He was just hoping no-one would notice the schematic or agree with me. Certainly he saw this. He saw this that first time when he kept posting the schematic detail. And asking the same question. 'What is on your actual circuit?'. LOL. SO. All this time while they were shouting that the battery discharge was responsible for at least one half of each oscillation - there was a noisy, clamorous DENIAL of my claim. And then? Just this silence.
It seems that NOT A ONE OF THEM is man enough nor brave enough to ADMIT AN OVERSIGHT. YET. When I genuinely acknowledge an oversight - NOTWITHSTANDING - THEN? They come at one like a pack of dogs. The one laughs. The others mock. Another recommends 'SUICIDE'. Then there's a no holds barred. A NEW HOWL of PROTEST. It seems that I have thereby NEGATED the very foundations of our claim.
It's all very Curious. In fact curious doesn't cut it. It is positively disgusting. Only partially more so than Poynty's earlier intellectual abuse where he attempted to recommend that a battery discharges a NEGATIVE current flow. This argument was also followed by that same SILENCE. It would be JUST SO nice to see ANY kind of intellectual honesty among any of those members. They can't all be employed by The Boss? Surely? But they absolutely can't manage it. There isn't enough character. Not an ounce of decency amongst any of them. They're just talking heads - some of whom are well paid by those with vested interests to KILL over unity. And some of whom are UTTERLY duped by those well paid talking heads. None have the strength of character nor the conviction to own up to their identities let alone their oversights. And certainly none are man enough to apologise.
Anyway. I just thought I'd alert you all to what seems to be a new and interesting scientific fact. When the penny falls - it MAKES NO NOISE AT ALL. How's that for an anomaly?
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I was alerted to a need to edit this. LOL. Have now done so.
255 - the challenge
Dear Reader,
This is my challenge to Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones.
We are more than willing to engage in a test that will be designed to compare comparative 'draw down rates' between our own test and a control. Of the 9 batteries that we started with we only have 6 remaining that have not been recharged through standard conventional recharging methods. We will use those batteries - 3 applied to the control and 3 applied to our own circuit. The heat dissipated at the loads of both the control and our experiment will be as close as dammit. We will then monitor the voltages of both tests until the one or the other battery bank has discharged to 10 volts. Then we will RECHARGE both batteries - through standard conventional recharging methods - to a full state of charge. Then we will SWAP those batteries. The control batteries will now be used for our test. The test batteries will be applied to the control. We will rerun those tests. We will carefully monitor their voltages until one or other of those sets of batteries discharges to 10 volts.
With the caveat - that this test carries the open and acknowledged acceptance that this proof will be considered definitive - by not less than 2 academics (our own esteemed Professor Jones, excepted as he has a vested interest in the outcome). Then we will be able to organise some means of securing that the test results cannot be tampered with - possibly by including a 3rd academic from this end.
Now again to the claim. We are able to generate a continual current flow that is enabled during the period that our battery is ENTIRELY disconnected. It results in a negative wattage that has no relevance to known physical paradigms. At its least it points to the existence of an alternate energy supply from the circuit material. We have resolved this by proposing that magnetic fields comprise tachyons that structure themselves in fields, along Faraday's Lines of Force. This would have the further merit of resolving Quantum and Classical dichotomies and is in line with proposals advanced by our String Theorists.
Should Professor Jones not be able to rally the required academics - then I put it to you all, that there is an impassable hurdle to over unity claims - when our esteemed and revered are not prepared to evaluate the evidence. It means that they've committed the unpardonable disgrace against the noble art of science - which FIRST AND FOREMOST requires theory to be PROVED OR DISPROVED against experimental evidence. And ever thereafter it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to salvage their own credibility. All those who work for evidence of over unity will then be entirely justified in denying them the respect that is ONLY afforded to SCIENCE. You cannot claim to be a scientist without acknowledging that experimental evidence TRUMPS theory.
And with the utmost respect to Poynty Point and his minions - LET ME ASSURE YOU - that while your vaunted prize is MOST desirable - it would hardly compensate for the required acknowledgement by our experts. Because without that acknowledgement then our science CANNOT be progressed. Which is why the test REQUIRES academic engagement.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
This is my challenge to Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones.
We are more than willing to engage in a test that will be designed to compare comparative 'draw down rates' between our own test and a control. Of the 9 batteries that we started with we only have 6 remaining that have not been recharged through standard conventional recharging methods. We will use those batteries - 3 applied to the control and 3 applied to our own circuit. The heat dissipated at the loads of both the control and our experiment will be as close as dammit. We will then monitor the voltages of both tests until the one or the other battery bank has discharged to 10 volts. Then we will RECHARGE both batteries - through standard conventional recharging methods - to a full state of charge. Then we will SWAP those batteries. The control batteries will now be used for our test. The test batteries will be applied to the control. We will rerun those tests. We will carefully monitor their voltages until one or other of those sets of batteries discharges to 10 volts.
With the caveat - that this test carries the open and acknowledged acceptance that this proof will be considered definitive - by not less than 2 academics (our own esteemed Professor Jones, excepted as he has a vested interest in the outcome). Then we will be able to organise some means of securing that the test results cannot be tampered with - possibly by including a 3rd academic from this end.
Now again to the claim. We are able to generate a continual current flow that is enabled during the period that our battery is ENTIRELY disconnected. It results in a negative wattage that has no relevance to known physical paradigms. At its least it points to the existence of an alternate energy supply from the circuit material. We have resolved this by proposing that magnetic fields comprise tachyons that structure themselves in fields, along Faraday's Lines of Force. This would have the further merit of resolving Quantum and Classical dichotomies and is in line with proposals advanced by our String Theorists.
Should Professor Jones not be able to rally the required academics - then I put it to you all, that there is an impassable hurdle to over unity claims - when our esteemed and revered are not prepared to evaluate the evidence. It means that they've committed the unpardonable disgrace against the noble art of science - which FIRST AND FOREMOST requires theory to be PROVED OR DISPROVED against experimental evidence. And ever thereafter it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to salvage their own credibility. All those who work for evidence of over unity will then be entirely justified in denying them the respect that is ONLY afforded to SCIENCE. You cannot claim to be a scientist without acknowledging that experimental evidence TRUMPS theory.
And with the utmost respect to Poynty Point and his minions - LET ME ASSURE YOU - that while your vaunted prize is MOST desirable - it would hardly compensate for the required acknowledgement by our experts. Because without that acknowledgement then our science CANNOT be progressed. Which is why the test REQUIRES academic engagement.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, February 13, 2012
254 - off again - on again - home again - finnegan
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)