Free Energy

*
User Menu
movieclipsfree
movie clips free
Emergencyunit
Emergencyhelper
Statistics

  • *Total Posts: 255792
  • *Total Topics: 9053
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 18
  • *Guests: 130
  • *Spiders: 0
  • *Total: 148

cropcircles
*
Theme Selector
*
Renewable E.
Ecofun
SunPower
10 % Off
Great Hosting
*
Google Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 41926 times)

vonwolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
PUBLIC NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)



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

   @spinn_MP
  Rose has been presenting her work and "defending" it for years and she hardly needs me to do it, she's quite accomplished at defending her self.  That said she started this thread to help document her progress she makes with the University's participation in a effort to keep this technology open source, she has already gone thru the fun times of working with others to try to replicate her experiment to prove her thesis, you just have to go back and read the 100's of posts here and elsewhere.
   Good luck Rose  Pete
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 12:09:40 AM by vonwolf »

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.

The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.

Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.

Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.

The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC)  a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.

I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.

My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.

However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.

My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

referencing this posted by fuzzytomcat
Quote from: fuzzytomcat
    PUBLIC NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    Sincerely,
    Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

Hello Happy - SO NICE TO SEE YOU THERE.  And many thanks for making due record here.  I see that - like so much - Glen tried to delete this too and lose all record.  LOL.

It's a delicious medley of the kind and type of confusions that seem to abound here.  In the first instance it is IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw information after it's been made public.  It is impossible to claim copyright if it weren't first copyrighted on first public disclosure.  It is impossible to censure the 6000 odd reads and multiple downloads of the paper from my Scribd publications - which is very much a public forum.  It is impossible to withdraw documentation that was earlier ratified.  It is impossible to scrub the minds of those thousands of 'reads' from thousands of members and guests - that our experimental evidence refers to.  What Glen is trying to say here is that this is exclusively HIS information to impart as HE prefers.  Unfortunately it is NOT.  So.  He can withdraw all that he wants - and claim it all for himself - but he's actually just howling at the moon.  It was freely given - and it's impossible to retrospectively assert any kind of 'price' on that gift - regardless as to whether that price is exclusive distribution rights or exclusive claim to the 'discovery' if that's the reach.

I am entirely satisfied - and the record speaks to this - that the experiments that Glen conducted were under the direct advisement of myself through Skype and the precise duplication of the primary circuit that we first published - circuit materials and vagaries excepted.  But I'm sure that you and all our readers here will be intrigued at the need to withdraw this VITAL experimental evidence in the first instance.  It speaks to motive.  And the motive is all too clear.   I'm afraid that Glen has committed a kind of intellectual suicide in this reach.  It is sad more than anything.  He's an ace experimentalist.

But, unfortunately - in the words of the immortal Khalil Gibran - 'the moving finger writes and having writ moves on...nor all thy piety and wit can cancel half a line.'  The delusions of trying to reverse the effects of publication are closely married to an attempt to reverse time itself.  Just can't be done. 

Interesting to see that he's signed it with full public disclosure of his identity.  I rather thought he was averse to letting the public trace this.  Certainly he wrote to Stefan to enjoin him to remove his surname from any future reference lest we discover his actual identity.  Strange developments afoot.

Regards,
Rosemary
 

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
TK - NICE POST.  It's not often that you deal with specifics.  At least I've got something here that I can get my teeth into. 

You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.
Golly TK.  One CANNOT refute the evidence unless you discount the value of the Tektronix TDS3054C that he used.  LOL.  What he DID do - which was sadly transparent in its motives - was use a second more sophisticated machine - he then adjusted the 'preferred oscillation' to show a loss which is REALLY easy to do - and then claimed that his earlier experiments where thereby DISPROVED.  Actually.  Let me correct that.  He did the tests - Harvey did the analysis.  LOL.  What a joke.

The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.
LOL  The ONLY person who found this error is YOU.  It was entirely refuted by Bob Potchen amongst others.  And had it produced a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle then it would have shown a commensurate waveform on the shunt that would have supported this.  The shunt values were earlier taken off our FLUKE.  Nowhere near as sophisticated an instrument the Tektronix that I solicited to assist us in Glen's tests.  But it was more than sufficient at the frequencies measured.  So.  With respect.  You did something there that ONLY YOU seemed to find.  But it's interesting that you, nonetheless, go on and on about this.  The measurements - the primary data - is extrapolated without any reference WHATSOEVER to the required duty cycle.  It just takes what's given to it and then shows the appropriate numbers.  I really don't give a damn - in any event - if there was an error in the publication of that 555 circuitry.  It is irrelevant.  It's the data that we measured.  And that does NOT lie.

Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.
TK?  REALLY?  I unfortunately NEVER saw evidence of a preferred oscillation mode - with respect.

Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.
This is true.  Glen only got COP>7.  But frankly - that only speaks to the requirement of more tess.  What Glen PROVED is that there are those choice moments in that resonance where the gain EXCEEDS the energy supplied from the battery.  We also saw this.  What we're hoping to do is find a way of keeping it at precisely this level - if it's possible.  But with or without these optimised moments - the gains are unequivocal. 

The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC)  a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.

I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.

My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.

However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.

My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.
This kind of reminds me of the following analogy that I used.  Everyone can scale 1 meter in a high jump.  Then someone scales 2 meters.  Everyone says that's impossible.  So others try.  Then someone scales the 2 meter jump and films that effort.  Then others continue to try and they still deny it's possibility.  You see this?  It just proves that you actually never managed that high jump.  Not that the high jump is unscaleable. 

Regards,
Rosemary
edited
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 06:36:33 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
TK - Actually I'm probably NOT being clear.  The analysis of our waveforms was NEVER deduced from the applied duty cycle.  If you look at the text of the original paper it stated words to the effect that 'the applied duty cycle is overridden'.  What happens is that in the 'preferred oscillation mode' which I think is the term that Harvey applied here - induces what is much much closer to a square wave - where the energy returned to the battery pretty nearly equals the energy first supplied.  The net value is zero.  So.  Far from there being any evident applied duty cycle - the system finds it's own. 

You never, to the best of my knowledge, even managed that oscillation.  Or if you did - then it was certainly not the REQUIRED oscillation. 

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)

Good luck Rose  Pete

Pete.  I missed this entirely.  Thanks.  Thank you very much.  I cannot tell you how it heartens me when other's speak up.  Otherwise this strange eccentric 'life on a forum' would be entirely unhappy. 

the very kindest and the very best of my regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Loner - I'm actually addressing your post in Glen's thread here.  I see you giving his subject the kind of gravitas that it otherwise lacks. 

That there are emotions related to this application is only because - from it's inception - these tests of mine seem to warrant an attack that has been unprecedented in any of these forums - with the possible exception of Mylow's test that TK managed to debunk - rather skillfully, I understand.  But the facts are that it's either the claim - or my nature - or both - that seem to engender a kind of protest that I have difficulty dealing with.  My own take is that I'm probably way too pedantic for my own good.  But be that as it may.  I can only do my best.  And I do. 

I can say, relating to the original thread, that there was far more data being posted relative to "Character" than to the experiment itself.
This is required.  The data is impeccable.  The only hope is to discredit my character.  The object being to discredit the tests - by hell or high water. 

This leads to one of several conclusions, which I am sure will cause m grief just for listing them.  1) Good Data, Good "Discovery" (Which has probably been shown in other unrelated areas, but not explained...) and someone wants "Credit" for it.   2) Good Data, but there was some form of error in the overall processing.   3) Good Data, but later found to be the result of a process that has already been documented.  4) Bad data and it's being insured that certain parties take the blame.
The answer here is partly in your 1st point.  But like all things it's not the whole of the picture.  There was a 'squabble' over the paper which I initiated as an open source effort.  Very unfortunate decision here.  It led to the inevitable squabbles as there were two members who were simply out to claim the entire experiment as an independent discovery.  The confrontation was rather unbridled - the most of it confined to off forum communications - and, being 'unfettered' in their emails, they indulged in a level of communication that was entirely unprofessional - excessive in it's delivery - and abusive in it's text.  Most of those statements made are actionable - and I look forward one day to finding a forum where I can make full disclosure of that - just to alert our public as to the nature of the players involved.  The comfort is that not all forum members are like that.  The sad news is that there are even any.  I suppose the truth is that I should just forget it.  But it was so PROFOUNDLY shocking.  I had NO idea that I was dealing with such horrors.

I could list a few more, but all of them state one thing.  More work, or further development needs to be done.  I am assuming that this is in process, but if this really shows any gain, the old human nature must
come into play.  Is that what's happening here?
No.  The only work being done by Glen and Harvey is the ongoing attempt to deny the earlier evidence.  But not much of that either.  They have very little interest in their own thread and even less participation.  Thankfully, their denials of efficiency are largely discounted.  In effect, had I not PROTESTED as strongly as I did - then I have NO DOUBT that this technology would have been buried.  That was and is their intention.

Or are petty emotions and greed taking over the subject?
I can only assure you that there's nothing PETTY in these constant requirements to ward off their attacks.  And I'm not qualified to say how much is motivated by greed or pure spite.  Possibly a little of both.  I have every intention of capitalising on this technology when it's finally determined how to 'up the wattage'.  And if it is not 'upped' then nor have I impoverished anyone in trying.  By the same token I would be delighted to see others advance the technolgy where the benefits will be entirely to their own accounts.  There's NO intellectual property rights here at all.

Or is there proof of error?  (Real proof, not possible...)
If there is proof of error then I assure you that there are MANY experts who have not been able to find it.  Just look again at the list of accreditors. 

and Vice-versa, is there real proof of function?  (Beyond what I have seen.  All I have is the original hand-written sheets, which seem fine.)The technology is entirely proven to 'PROOF OF CONCEPT'  But, of course, it needs development.  We're looking to try and resolve any outstanding questions here.

Seeing that Rose is "No longer" reading this thread, I must assume she cannot respond to this, but I hesitate to put this into Her thread as, from what I can read here, the moderation seems to have an agenda, which this type of comment might not fit into.  What that agenda is, it's not even my place to guess.
Loner?  I have never objected to thoughtful critical observations.  Much required.  I think the only reason that I've been given moderation of the thread is to ensure that it's not subjected to the kind of troll attack that was evident - historically.  I have only deleted a single post from Ramset as he had an 'adults only' link - one from shrugged Atlas - which was done in error - and 1 from Spinn because it was just way too offensive.  For the rest I've either tolerated comments or reposted them on another thread.  With all that rubbish it would otherwise have buried my thead here. Also.  I try, to the best of my ability to MARK any modifications that I make to my own posts.  I NEVER modify others' posts.

So, I guess what I am asking is, what's the real point to all of this?  Or is this whole project just a Soap Opera?
I actually think that Glen is 'bursting' for want of telling his story.  And frankly - I think he should.  It may 'clear his head' so to speak.  There's always two sides to a story and - albeit that he struggles with language - he clearly feels that he has his justifications.  I haven't seen any justifiable reason for his withholding prime data from the public which is what he invariably resorts to doing.  The subject is way too important for his personal feelings to get in the way.

I will be listening.  Clear language requested as I can read between the lines very well technically, but this social banter mystifies me..
There is no way that ANYONE can remove emotions from science - not with the best will in the world.  We are ALL inclined to support our own logic or even our own 'beliefs'.  Nothing wrong with that.  I'm entirely satisfied that even our Greats were inclined to passion.  So.  In my book all is just dandy.  I'm intensely relieved that Glen is on another thead as I would prefer my own to stay more considered and reasonable.  And I am satisfied he is incapable of any kind of emotional constraint or sensible thinking.

So.  Here's what I'm trying to tell you.  Feel free to express whatever doubts you have.  I welcome this as I can then address the issue.  Else I am not even aware of such doubts and I'd be sorry to lose out on the opportunity.  We're making some hefty inroads into some new technologies and clearly, there are such as you and Paul who were not even aware of this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 


This couldn't all be "Troll Arrogance", could it?  (That would be me, too...)
Sorry I missed this.  If it is arrogance - then again, I really don't think I'm culpable.  I have NOTHING to be arrogant about.  Nor has Glen.  He's good at experimental work.  But that's it.

As a side note, anyone remember the SSG.  Did it work?  Does that argument sound familiar?   Some things never change.......
Have NO idea what SSG is - so can't comment.

edited the spelling of the word deleted.  LOL
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 11:55:28 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

happyfunball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
SSG is Bedini's 'Simple School Girl' motor.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

markdansie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Hi Rosemary,
you should take TK's posts as complimentry, he rarely pays attention to anything he considers not worthwhile and does not tollerate fools (proberbly why he never answered any of my mail)
Mark

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Thanks for the explanation Happy.  And Mark - regarding TK's interest - there's absolutelty nothing complimentary about it - I assure you.  And frankly I've known hooded cobras with more charm than he has.  But I grant you.  He is, at least, really clever.  There's that to be said.  Just a shame that it's wasted on this mission to destroy.  LOL.  He's like a human nuclear warhead - aimed at clean green, and any old ladies that are reckless enough to get into the firing line. 

 ::) ;D

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

And by the way - sorry Loner.  I still can't comment on the SSG.  I'd need to read up on it. 

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Loner

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 828
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Rosemary, either way, thanks for the reply.

I find the "Banter" almost as interesting as the concept.  I can offer no opinions myself, as I need to review much more before I could.

Maybe I can catch up with other things and really check in-depth, but right now, I must continue with other things.   I shall return to this.

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Rosemary, either way, thanks for the reply.

I find the "Banter" almost as interesting as the concept.  I can offer no opinions myself, as I need to review much more before I could.

Maybe I can catch up with other things and really check in-depth, but right now, I must continue with other things.   I shall return to this.

Frankly Loner - it's better that you don't 'catch up'.  We always seem to find intermittent moments where we all shout at each other across the wide Atlantic.  And I'm reasonably certain that snarling dogs are somewhat more articulate.  But there's a lot of turbulence under the bridge so to speak - and it needs an outlet.  Fortunately Harti seems to allow this - under the general banner of freedom of speech.  So.  In principle it has my support.  In reality it allows the reading public to make up their own minds.  And in fact it does nothing but continue to remind all and sundry as to what was lost in all that data that Glen keeps hidden.

Guys - that copper thread through the armature of a spinning rotor?  There's an outside chance that this will be tested on Sunday.  It'll be interesting.  My own take is this.  IF it works then we can, at least, measure a current flow.  And even if it's nominal in these early tests - then the principle is proven.  Hopefully it'll be something that our 'motor experimentalists' will then be able to exploit.

Regarding the tests at university.  I can only apologise - yet again - for endless delays.  This time because it's exam time.  All finished by this coming Friday.  So next week?  I'm embarrassed to propose that this may yet be possible.  Certainly from Monday onwards we'll all be able to concentrate on this work almost exclusively.

Regarding the magnets?  I believe our first pyramid is due to be cut tomorrow.  They've had to reduce the size - one because the delivered cut was rather crude and imprecise.  Second because a number of them have been chipped.  They're amazingly strong. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Free Energy

truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys.  This thread will be devoted to the development of our first application designed around exploiting the principles of our COP>17 circuit variously also known as a Mosfet Heating Circuit.  Full details of the circuit will be posted together with the proposed tests all of which will be conducted on a local university campus.  We've finally got this to an academic forum and will have the real benefit of some critical academic evaluations.  There are a great number of posts to be transferred and this will take me some time.  But watch this space.  Harti has kindly allowed his forum for the systematic disclosure of all information related to this in the interests of keeping this fully available to Open Source.  I will be dealing with all aspects related to this both on early tests, test replications and future tests.

Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising


So. Where are the results, pics, and videos?

truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
@Otto
I answered this - modified it and then ... deleted it.  Not intended.  And I'm frankly not that interested to try and re-iterate my points or my post.

Intrigued with your need to 'wright even more misleadings' Otto.  Not sure if you mean 'right' as in correct or write as in write.  LOL.  I feel you need to 'wright these rongs' if you mean us to understand you.  In any event, I take you that you mean 'right' as in correct?  Then the next question is do you mean to correct your own 'misleadings' or those of others?  Perhaps myself?  I'd be glad of some clarification.  In view of the fact that you have neither read the thesis nor the papers - then I assume you'll be working on generalised impressions of what either constitute and represent.  It'll be an interesting exercise in 'presumption' or 'assumption' ... whichever.

One point I WOULD STRESS.  I sincerely hope you do improve on our co-efficient of performance.  But I doubt that adding to the complexity of a circuit will cut it.  But it would be nice if it does.  In my view there's only one way forward from here and that's upwards.  OU technology is very definitely in its infancy.


So. Is it funny to make fun of others language translations? The Open Source Forum is made up of individuals from many countries and languages.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Truthbeknown.  It is in the most extraordinarily bad taste that you reference a post from a member who is no longer with us.

I have reported this post of yours as I find it positively indecent.  There is a world of difference between a 'tease' and a criticism.  Clearly it eludes you.  I think our moderators will see here why it is that I have so little respect for you and this post of yours is the evidence needed to prove how you are trying to flame my threads and ALL my posts. 

Rosemary
 
 

Hi All,

please add on your site a link to OverUnity.com

and get back great targeted traffic..

Please click here to go to
Link-Submit-Page

Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan. (admin)

Page created in 0.131 seconds with 28 queries.