TK:

I read everything you said the first go round the other day and it all made sense to me.  I suppose one of the big questions is is this stuff about Q1 switching on covered in the NERD paper or not.  If it's not mentioned then I would think that they were comfortably numb.

MileHigh

Dear eatenbyagrue,

I am delighted to see that you are proposing a 'world' prize for recognition of my hard work related to over unity claims regardless of the thesis in support of it or of the results.  That's certainly as meritorious as are TK's claimed replications and is very much in keeping with the general tone of this forum that is entirely dedicated to the entire suppression of any evidence of over unity at all.  It would be an extraordinary departure if anything less was put to the table.

I think it is perhaps, long overdue to remind TK et al - that our claim has NOTHING to do with the demonstration that he seems intent on referencing.  Our claim is entirely and only represented in the two-part paper that Poynty very kindly made publicly accessible.  However, it is appreciated that TK would not be able to argue that evidence - so one must make allowances for his excessive and rather adventurous misrepresentations.  I would also propose that perhaps you could extend that proposed prize to include his own extraordinary efforts in this regard.  I do not think that anyone - in the history of these forums - has managed to so entirely misrepresent anything at all - with such a baffling series of scientific abuse coupled with an excessive liberality of invective and insult.  Commendably unprofessional.  And entirely adequate to the required 'disinformation program' that he relies on to earn his keep.  Hopefully it will buy him that Buick which he covets.

And I wonder if a further prize shouldn't be nominated for those trolls who, with Harti's encouragement, have usurped ownership of this thread.  It seems that they can allege anything at all - without limitation - with a freedom of expression that Joseph Goebbels would have difficulty in emulating.

In any event. It all lends the required gravitas to this search for over unity.  And it's a salutary reminder to us all that our over unity forums are actually only a lure to the unsuspecting - to suppress any kind of information that may advance the public good and that may free us from our gridlocked reliance on our equally abusive monopolists.  Who are we mere mortals to challenge all that absolute control - well funded as it is?

Kindest regards,
Rosie
added
corrected

Dear TinselKoala

Regarding your instructions to my attorney.  I will ensure that my attorney get receipt of this and will most certainly address all the issues that you have raised.  Certainly they are apposite and require full explanation.  And when that consultation is completed and the questions that you raised have been fully addressed and when you have been answered - then I am reasonably satisfied that you will be billed accordingly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Ainslie said,
 

I think it is perhaps, long overdue to remind TK et al - that our claim has NOTHING to do with the demonstration that he seems intent on referencing. 

 Here are some screenshots from the video in question. Perhaps my "confusion" is understandable... since I know how to read.

You are claiming heat to the load, with battery recharging, are you not? Isn't that what these slides say?

Oh.... I forgot. We are in "relative language" territory where words only mean what Ainslie says they mean, and they mean different things when I say them than when She says them.

My dear Tinsel Koala

I had nothing whatsoever to do the with public posting of that video demonstration.  And I put it to you and any readers on this forum that the demonstration absolutely does not represent our claim.  At best it is merely 'related' to our claim.  Our claim is entirely described in the 2-part paper that you are intent on ignoring.

Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie Pose

Why don't you ask eatenbyagrue who will get the bill for YOUR attorney's time spent researching and understanding YOUR claim. You might also ask him what he considers MY time to be worth.

Are you saying that eatenbyagrue represents you TinselKoala?  That explains much.  I'm afraid you will need to look to your principals for payment of your fee.  We do not, in any way, consider ourselves liable.

Rosie Pose

My dear Tinsel Koala

I had nothing whatsoever to do the with public posting of that video demonstration.  And I put it to you and any readers on this forum that the demonstration absolutely does not represent our claim.  At best it is merely 'related' to our claim.  Our claim is entirely described in the 2-part paper that you are intent on ignoring.

Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, YOU posted that video yourself, under the very typical alias of "dooziedont".
Here's the quote from the "description":

On 12 March 2011 academics from multiple local universities, colleges and technikons were invited to witness the anomalous behavior of our test rig. Here are presented two tests on the same rig showing both a higher and lower output wattage.  No measurable energy was measured to have been delivered by the supply. This was shown to those in attendance at that demonstration. Unhappily, of the 32 academics invited, no experts in electrical engineering atttended.  The balance, although qualified, cannot be considered expert in this field.  We trust they'll endorse the measurement protocols as being adequate for proof of anomalies.

Anybody here will recognize your writing style here, and your voice can be heard in the background of the video.

AGAIN

I am absolutely NOT responsible for the posting of that video in the public domain.  And again.  It absolutely DOES NOT represent the claim.  It only RELATES to the claim.

Rosemary, YOU posted that video yourself, under the very typical alias of "dooziedont".
Here's the quote from the "description":
Anybody here will recognize your writing style here, and your voice can be heard in the background of the video.