Hi Farmhand,

I do not think there is even a small misunderstanding here, SeaMonkey just tries to play monkey with members here. Just follow his posts, his latest buzz suggestion is a question: "Is inductor saturation desirable for some length of time?" and he had these buzz generalities earlier like 'optimum ratio of external inductance to heater resistance', or using 'near perfect coil' or 'efficient switching scheme' etc IMPLYING as if these technics 'make the concept work'. And see Reply #205 what he answered when asked to define 'work': Hot Stuff.

rgds, Gyula

I imagine that he gets issued with too many tots of rum! 

Well maybe I won't bother sharing unless I get what I see as useful unconventional Over Unity then,
would be far too much trouble to worry posting about anything less than C.O.P. = 2.0 with 100 Watts output or more.
It would be a waste of my time even if it was real. I won't ever have anything I "need" to prove to anyone
unless I'm being held by the Cops on a bum rap, but I could have stuff to share.

Maybe I'm wrong about SeaMonkey's comments.  I do know one thing though and that is.

There will always be false claimants of OU so debunkers are necessary, I've put paid to quite a few myself
as has SeaMonkey.

I've never taken much notice of Rosemary's claims because there is not enough power to be interesting.
I don't think there are any clear sides to these sagas. Many different points of view though.

The way I see it without retro proving every single thing we say, when we post we just give "opinions".

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinions get taken the wrong way quite often,
it's a good way to annoy people into not sharing.

It is good to see frank discussion on the false claimants. For certain.

For instance no one needed a degree to see through UFOPolitics or Thane Heins' claims,
I picked them from the first video of theirs I watched.

Now if we want people in general to become more discerning about false OU claims then what we
want is for them to educate themselves in a positive way not be told by us what is real and what is not
and expect them to learn that way.

Truth is a lot of people don't want to learn they just want to be the one to stumble on something they can call OU.
While those people exist there will be a place for the likes of UFO, Thane and Rosemary to ply their claims.

Cheers

P.S. Just my opinion but I think it's better to take the hype out of OU by showing logically than any OU can only ever be
the collection or release of energy. No thing can ever make an output of work without at least the equivalent input from somewhere.

There is no Over Unity. There is only C.O.P. over 1.0. or the harnessing of energy that we need not pay for,
the devices to utilize the energy may have a monetary cost or not. 

Why can we not hammer that point home day and night until it sinks in ?

..

I will be following up tK regards these matters tomorrow
Mark

She's welcome to her "theories" which, by the way do not rise to that level at all. Neither is her word salad a "thesis" in the proper sense of the term. It is a handwaving bunch of delusional conjectures which not only do not describe any new features of the world, they do not even describe accurately the features we _do_ know about. She pretends her "thesis" is something on the order of Quantum Electrodynamics and in fact pretends that her "thesis" should supplant that "incomplete and inaccurate theory". She believes that reading popular science books by Gell-Mann and Gary Zukov constitutes a physics education. She is truly unqualified to have an opinion in these matters, much less to posit some kind of superior "theory"! Have you actually _read_ the papers? Did you notice that her cartoon Figure 9 _doesn't even correspond to any circuitry she used_ yet purports to explain the operation of the circuit in terms of her "theory"? It is absurd.

But sure, she's welcome to her "theories". But if she claims experimental results.... and pretends to be scientific about it... that is where I draw the line.

She has demonstrated amply that she lies, cheats, alters data, gets others to lie for her, misrepresents data and experimental conditions, engages in data selection,  refuses to correct obvious errors, fails to understand and follow simple directions, does not understand her own chosen topic, misrepresents the words of others, and pesters people to no end. Not to mention the insults she slings when someone disagrees with her. So when she takes her bogus "experiments" public and tries to claim things that are not supported by _real data_ I'll be right there, doing what I do.

Like it has already been stated on record, Rose has made this public statement : "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."
 
She is big enough to admit she was wrong in the above public statement at pesn.com.  I must commend her for her actions in accordance.  Let it go PEOPLE!
 
She has made a mistake.  We have all made mistakes.  Let he who is without a single error in life cast the first capacitor!
 
OM

TK, the Ainslie thing has produced a reference for proper circuit testing techniques, and you and others have the errors well documented for anyone to see.

She clearly doesn't want to give up hope, to the point that she'll leave up faulty meaningless 'proof' forever, and will insult and/or slander anyone who gets in her way.

It's not your problem, it's hers.

It's her problem and it's Donovan Martin's problem too, since he really should know better than to have his name on a paper that contains the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot and the claims made about it.

It's her problem and it's Donovan Martin's problem too, since he really should know better than to have his name on a paper that contains the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot and the claims made about it.

I'm guessing he knows better now.