Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 657875 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1635 on: June 26, 2011, 05:31:58 PM »
Evolvingape - I have NEVER claimed a monopoly on the answers to our energy crisis.  I hope I've only ever pointed at where that answer lies.  The ways to access this are manifold.  And I think the door is barely opened a fraction.  But spare me the work of advancing anything other than what I know.  I personally think that Lasersaber's work AND Pirate's work are both FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what we're uncovering.  But that's because of what it shows.  They both need to get it to higher wattage values to make it more practical.  Meanwhile I also KNOW that we have a ready made solution to applying heat.  And I also know that anyone at all who actually takes the trouble to replicate - whether successful or not - at whatever build they try - is doing UNTOLD GOOD to this general drive towards OU. All efforts add weight to the cause that eventually those credibility barriers will just collapse.

So.  If there is another ready made solution.  That's a really good thing.  I'm not a chemist.  And, as mentioned, my interests are only in the thesis.  But I can only prove my thesis on this experiment.  But it also has the very real benefit of answering our needs for clean green.

Regards
Rosemary

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1636 on: June 26, 2011, 07:01:58 PM »
Oh yes we have.  We've replicated our own tests PUBLICLY.  We've also got two team members who have independently replicated this as well as variations of that circuit.  AND we've got a HOST of simulations.  And WHO EXACTLY are you referring to when you say 'Why is it then that ALL the people of this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.'? I'm not sure that there were any.  Ever.  Certainly none that have posted here.  What I DO know is that Neptune and a couple of others were going to try.  But they moved over to try and replicate RomeroUK's work.  With good reason. Remember?  It was YOU who actively advised all to stop posting here and GO THERE.  Do try and think back CAT!  It wasn't THAT long ago.  Golly.         
When I get reasonable requests then I will certainly do whatever it is that is asked of me.  Right now I've been ASKED nothing.  I've had you and MaMags DEMAND that I do an entirely absurd test that will cost me in the region of R10 000.00 IF I do what you require.  And that DEMAND was laced with a clumsy, rude and heavy handed challenge that we could ever get our supply batteries to outperform a control.  Since we've ALREADY shown that it outperformed - then that challenge is void and meaningless.  And I'm not inclined to DO YOUR BIDDING unfortunately CAT because I'm not inclined to co-operate under that menace of denial.  Deny to your heart's content.  It means nothing.  Alternatively, do your own tests.  There's nothing to stop you.  I'm constantly AMAZED that you armchair enthusiasts can charge through these forums advocating one thing - denying another - always off the point - never with any ACTUAL knowledge, skill or authority - and DOING NOTHING YOURSELVES.  It's extraordinary.  And not only that but you then DEMAND that we do your BIDDING?  What are we?  Your slaves?  Do you think that your personal endorsements means that much that you can dispense with politeness and just sit back and call for whatever shots you require.  Do you really think that I care for your opinion?  I don't.  I assure you.  There was a time when I would have cared - deeply.  As it is I now know you SO MUCH better.
WHO HAS FALLEN ON THEIR FACE?  NOT YOU.  You've replicated NOTHING.  NOT ANY MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM?  WHO?
It is NO MORE LUDICROUS THAN TO DEMAND THAT I DO A TEST THAT WILL END UP COSTING ME R10 000.00.  Is it right that I pick up that tab?  When I KNOW that no-one will pay the slightest heed to any result that we show? 
Now we're getting closer to the truth.  What your ACTUAL beef is that there are no replications.   Therefore I must provide more evidence?  Exactly HOW do you expect me to co-operate with that concern?  Just go over your posts and tell me WHERE have you asked anything at all?  I've looked.  I see NOTHING.  What I see is an immature tantrum from a lazy armchair enthusiast insulting me in every way he can - in the absurd hopes of thereby encouraging me to co-operate and show YET MORE EVIDENCE.  All I can say is that I will NOT co-operate under any kind of coercion or duress.  I will not be bullied.  And I will not try and redeem your opinion EVER.  You may think what you like.
AGAIN.  WHAT REASONABLE REQUESTS ARE YOU REFERRING TO? 
As I say.  Your opinion related to FuzzyTomCat's work - RomeroUK's work - or anyone's work - is a matter of supreme indifference to me.  I happen to know that you're an insulting bully and that you're incapable of the intellectual rigor required to assess the truth in anything at all.
AGAIN.  No member has even TRIED to replicate our circuit.  When they do and then IF THEY FAIL - then this comment may then have some kind of historical merit. 

R

As you keep regurgitating the same old arguments, I will do the same as clearly you do not want to change the deadlock and you insist on treating this forum as your personal blog.

No doubt if you answer this you will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.

I personally think you should stay on this forum posting but you should do something new, and changed the deadlock that after two years nobody can reproduce your results (on this forum)

Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
Mr Mag has made you a very good suggestion that might go a long way to help you. That's right help you. Most people on here like to help you, but you are so stubborn and insist on repeating your claims and argue about measurements over and over again. (please do something new to prove your case)

Quote from: MrMag on June 20, 2011, 08:19:39 AM
I really don't know why you are bringing this up again. You said you weren't going to do it anyways. My point was that it could be done very easily and at a much lower cost then you mentioned. I was just pointing out a way that it could be done without anyone standing there watching it 24/7. You can say what you like, it doesn't bother me. You just have to agree that it could be done without someone sitting in front of it. And, you don't need a scope or anything hooked up to it. Just hook it up and let it run. If you will do the test, we could take a serious look at ways to enclose the device safely and try to minimize damage if a fire occurs.

Why are you so defensive and what's with all the name calling. You've called me more things in the last 4 days then I've been called in all the time I've been here. Please don't look at me as a threat, I only asked you to do a simple test and I still don't know if you understand what I am asking. TK seemed to explain it maybe a little better then I did, but I don't think I deserve all the things you've been saying. Please be a little more lady like.
End Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RomeroUK's work, You keep bringing this up, this is a classic diversionary action, RomeroUK's work and who is following it has nothing to do with this thread but you would say anything to divert the argument

The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1637 on: June 26, 2011, 07:08:03 PM »
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog

What a lie.  I've done with answering you CAT.  Do your damnedest.
R

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1638 on: June 26, 2011, 07:26:02 PM »
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog

What a lie.  I've done with answering you CAT.  Do your damnedest.
R

If anyone is lying it must be you, you can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has, and before you say Fuzzy did it, here is his post again

The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, part from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 19, 2011, 07:11:18 PM
Rosemary any credibility you had left is "GONE" especially after your posting of the pure nonsense "REPORT".

NO ONE HERE AT OVER UNITY cares about your pathetic thesis .... This thread is called Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 for a reason none of which you have ever understood titles of threads at http://www.energeticforum.com/ .... http://www.overunityresearch.com/ ..... http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/ ..... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/ ( aka witsend , aetherevarising ) where you were banned for continued false and inaccurate statements and attacking members.   

I invite and challenge everyone readers and guests to look at the 8,000 postings of Rosemary's spread out over several years at these forums and see for yourself.

This thread here at OU.com was to show evidence of a finding on a claim of "YOURS" on efficiency of a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY.

You have not shown in any "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" how to obtain this efficiency in any way shape or form a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY and have "FAILED" miserably only a grade or high school electronic class will be interested in your claim.

You ( Rosemary ) cannot supply one credible package of one experiment that includes a circuit diagram with oscilloscope screen shots done during the test not even one to verify your claim of a finding.

The REPORT failed .... nothing for a independent experimentalist to take and to make a device to your specifications for testing and evaluation in a scientific method to verify the claim on a finding of COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY ....

There is nothing in this thread of value you are a terrible inventor and experimentalist and my credentials and expertise stand on there own and well documented unlike yours ..... this is what documentation looks like .... FYI
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html  ( nine pages !!!! )
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

I won't be so nice to ask you a "TENTH" time here in this thread to do the testing in a scientific method required and do it correctly, not half ass or less as you have shown or are you incapable of the request.

Facts only Facts can you do that ? Are you capable Rosemary ? Do you need someone to hold your hand ?   ???

Fuzzy
 :P
Reply

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1639 on: June 26, 2011, 07:35:47 PM »
edit: my bad, it wasn't a lemon, it was a potato...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8387.msg215247#msg215247

Ahh, another one of those pickled herring statements. You should try to get your facts straight if you are going to try to use them against someone. But you never post the part where I admit I was wrong. Why is that?

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1640 on: June 26, 2011, 08:18:05 PM »
But spare me the work of advancing anything other than what I know.  I personally think that Lasersaber's work AND Pirate's work are both FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what we're uncovering.

I agree with this statement.

Meanwhile I also KNOW that we have a ready made solution to applying heat.

Are you talking about the batteries catching fire?

doing UNTOLD GOOD to this general drive towards OU. All efforts add weight to the cause that eventually those credibility barriers will just collapse.

That's why I politely asked, not demanded that you do the test. I'm just trying to get you some credibility.


And, as mentioned, my interests are only in the thesis

Yeah, we know, that's the whole problem. You have no credibility and your claims are based solely on your own test results. How serious do you expect professionals will take you with only your information to back up your claim. No replications to match your results and even your own team members have turned against you. There is definitely something wrong here. No wonder you are so ignorant and defensive to people here.

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1641 on: June 26, 2011, 11:27:50 PM »
Actually Cat it's you who are misleading. Plenty of replications on our previous circuit.  And even from members on this forum.  But you're right that no-one has replicated this circuit - other than on Poynty's sims


Oh yes we have.  We've replicated our own tests PUBLICLY.  We've also got two team members who have independently replicated this as well as variations of that circuit.  AND we've got a HOST of simulations.  And WHO EXACTLY are you referring to when you say 'Why is it then that ALL the people of this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.'? I'm not sure that there were any.  Ever.

No comment required  ::)

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1642 on: June 27, 2011, 03:26:27 AM »
...  Joules = 1 watt per second....
No, 1 watt = 1 joule per second.

  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.
Regards,
Rosemary

Are you sure that you want to say 248,292 joules per second?  248,292 joules per second = 248,292 watts.  That is almost a quarter million watts!  That is ten times what my house electric service can muster at 240 volts X 100 amps = 24,000 watts.  248,292 watts is over 300 horsepower.  Do you think that maybe you need to do the math again?

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1643 on: June 27, 2011, 04:10:38 AM »
Hahaha, No wonder the voltage doesn't drop in the batteries those are DAMN big batteries!! Maybe rose needs to do that continuous test for 2 years instead of 2 month. Missed that one Bubba.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1644 on: June 27, 2011, 04:46:37 AM »
No, 1 watt = 1 joule per second.

Are you sure that you want to say 248,292 joules per second?  248,292 joules per second = 248,292 watts.  That is almost a quarter million watts!  That is ten times what my house electric service can muster at 240 volts X 100 amps = 24,000 watts.  248,292 watts is over 300 horsepower.  Do you think that maybe you need to do the math again?

You're absolutely right Bubba.  I've amended the post.  Here it is again.


Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration.  We DO.  He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device.  We ARE.  He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look.  We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket.  Stefan declined our offer.  BUT.  Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device.  For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer.   That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting.  In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.

NOW.  Let's look at your second beef.  The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'.  REALLY?  The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting.  All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals.  And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on.  They see how I have been treated.  They know better.

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.




amended

I'm actually still not sure that I've not understated this by a factor of 60.  But since 4.18 Joules also relates to watts and watts is a value represented by seconds then this caloric value could be 4.18 joules by 1 degree centigrade by 1 second.  In which case time has been factored in.  I just don't know.  I've therefore erred on the side of caution and simply multiplied that total by the MINUTES that the test ran.  Regarding your own household maximum watt output  at 240 x 100 = 24 000 watts?  Not sure that this is relevant.  I think if you output that amount work over 90 minutes which is the test duration period then you'd actually output  240 x 100 x 60 seconds x 90 minutes = 129 million watts - which is rather more than the rated capacity of our batteries and considerably higher than the energy that we're  referencing in our tests.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1645 on: June 27, 2011, 05:44:32 AM »
Regarding your own household maximum watt output  at 240 x 100 = 24 000 watts?  Not sure that this is relevant.  I think if you output that amount work over 90 minutes which is the test duration period then you'd actually output  240 x 100 x 60 seconds x 90 minutes = 129 million watts - which is rather more than the rated capacity of our batteries and considerably higher than the energy that we're  referencing in our tests.

I think he was just trying to show you a comparison.

Golly rose, did you even try to comprehend that answer? 129 MILLION watts!!! And you have the nerve to call everyone here incompetent, unqualified, and ignorant. You also say that Poynt is useless at power measurement when you come up with this number?

Do you really think that you are qualified to say that anyone is incompetent when you come up with this number? You better try again.
Hint: Go on the internet and Google "watt-hour calculation"

No wonder you are under the impression that your circuit is OU.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1646 on: June 27, 2011, 05:47:43 AM »
I think he was just trying to show you a comparison.

Golly rose, did you even try to comprehend that answer? 129 MILLION watts!!! And you have the nerve to call everyone here incompetent, unqualified, and ignorant. You also say that Poynt is useless at power measurement when you come up with this number?

Do you really think that you are qualified to say that anyone is incompetent when you come up with this number? You better try again.
Hint: Go on the internet and Google "watt-hour calculation"

No wonder you are under the impression that your circuit is OU.

DEAR GOD HELP US ALL.  This from a man who CLAIMS he's had 30 odd years of experience as a qualified electrical engineer?
R

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1647 on: June 27, 2011, 05:49:32 AM »
Guys - since Cat is only able to quote Fuzzy - I think I need to put some facts on the table.  Fuzzy claims that he never replicated out first test.  Here's why.  He could only find COP>4.  We claimed COP>17.  On the strength of that claim he therefore ALSO claims that his test is materially different to our own test.  Therefore his test is more in the nature of his own personal discovery than a replication.  Because he could not replicate the COP>17 result he claims that we lied about that result.  He also goes on to claim that we are lying about these new tests. He does not - personally - believe that we have a COP>17 let alone an INFINITE COP.  Nor does he believe in the basis of my thesis which, as you now understand, I hope, is NOT so much a thesis as a validation of Farrady's inductive laws.  He also claims that I am not an experimentalist as I do not have the competence.  He also claims that I am not a theoretician as I do not have the competence.  He rifled my photobucket to find out which academy I was working with.  When he established this he then wrote to CPUT to advise them that I have stolen his work and that I MAY NOT reference a paper that was written on this work as it is plagiarised.  In other words,  not only was the paper NOT written by me but that the work was nothing to do with a replication of our earlier work.  That application was unsuccessful.  Then he wrote to SCRIBD to tell them I'd plagiarised his work.  That application WAS successful.  Scribd withdrew the paper that I had published - the ONLY paper on record that was submitted to TIE.  So  anxious was Fuzzy to ensure that NO-ONE followed my work he then took the trouble to message most of the contributors to this thread to advise them that I was a liar - and incompetent - a thief - a fraud - and above all - do not ASSOCIATE with this work.  He made public a private video that I had sent to him. He has  started 3 threads dedicated to maligning my good name and has contributed generously to a blogspot dedicated to this same purpose.  He has gone further.  He has also run a series of tests that showed that he could NOT duplicate the COP>4 tests and therefore denies that there was ever any benefit.  He has not yet retracted that paper that claims COP>4 which is curious.  Hopefully he'll eventually put that record straight.

I think we all now know what Fuzzy thinks of me and of our work.  It seems that CAT and MAMAGS think the same.  No doubt TK and Poynty share those opinions - and no doubt there are yet many, many others of like mind.  And no doubt there will be yet many more to come.  That is the value of open source.  It allows any person - regardless of their motives - to say anything they want and claim what they like.  And in the face of all these claims and allegations and opinions it seems that our work is doomed.  So be it.

So.  It really is not such a hard thing to kill any new beneficial technology.  It just needs persistence.

Rosemary

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1648 on: June 27, 2011, 06:32:03 AM »
DEAR GOD HELP US ALL.  This from a man who CLAIMS he's had 30 odd years of experience as a qualified electrical engineer?
R

Well, I worked it out to something like 36Kw hours. But I could be wrong, I have been before and at least I do admit it. Not like you rose.

What about the other post where I showed that you quoted that there have been people on this forum who have replicated your circuit and then later on you say that no one on this forum has replicated your circuit.

Don't forget, you are the one making the OU claims, not me. I think your reputation and credibility is a lot more at stake then mine. Remember, you already said that I was incompetent, unqualified, useless..... But you are right, we have enough engineers what we need are more waitresses.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1649 on: June 27, 2011, 06:37:45 AM »
And since I'm on a roll - let me give a synopsis of Poynty's argument.  Here it is.  The simulation shows an INFINITE COP ONLY if we factor in the connecting leads.  Without those leads there is NO  INFINITE COP.

And TK's argument - something on the lines of Fuzzy - HE could not achieve COP > ANYTHING AT ALL - therefore there is no COP>ANYTHING AT ALL. 

And MileHihigh's argument - his personal BEST.  How can we CLAIM results that are greater COP 1 when standard science does not ALLOW THIS.  Therefore are we wrong.

And so it goes.  All these thousands of posts and always that same argument.  I personally think that these posts eventually reach a certain critical mass and then they JUST COLLAPSE.  And I think we're well over that point.

I'm preparing a detailed account of the absurdities of all these arguments and will post in on my blogspot.  Meanwhile I really need to say goodbye to you all.  I'll post here again when we've finished that paper.

Rosemary

I omitted CAT's reasons.  He thinks that Fuzzy is a good guy and that anything Fuzzy claims is just perfectly OK.  And as for MaMags.  He doesn't think.  Ever.  He just echoes everyone else - not unlike my little 2 year old granddaughter who echos her own big sister.  It would be rather sweet if it weren't also so utterly destructive.

Anyway.  Bye for now.  I've got another paper to prepare before we submit the one that's now finished.