Rosemary, I just sent an e-mail to prof Gaunt asking him as to whether or not he has confirmed your experimental claim for obtaining more energy out than in. I'm rejecting the idea that electric current isn't due to flow of electrons entirely, in view of the simple experimental facts which definitively prove that it is, and I have no further interest in that part.

Couldn't find Professor Tapsen's e-mail address. Maybe @WilbyInebriated can help. He's good at that.


P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com

holy buckets of no comprehension batman!
omni, rosemary already told you that none of them confirmed anything, they didn't even witness the experiment. you can read can't you? go read what she EXPLICITLY said, they stipulated the protocols...

yeah i can help you... can you help yourself? the email is in the link i posted previously.

edit: my bad, i didn't post the other link. funny though, it was about as hard to find as gaunt's...
http://www.eleceng.uct.ac.za/people/jct.php
are you going to ask him if he has confirmed rosemary's experimental claim even though she has already told you he has not?

In the light of the above - may I impose on you to explain why it is that you're asking Professor Gaunt to confirm whether he's attended a demonstration or not?

i can rosemary. it is part of an orchestrated use of logical fallacy, he will do something similar to what he tried to do to mr. kaku. that is to say, attempt to undermine credibility with logical fallacy...

Hi Wilby.  I will be entirely embarrassed by that communication from Omnibus as it will imply that I've been making public announcement of academic accreditation when I've gone to some considerable efforts to state the exact opposite.  And there is nothing can be done to correct this general impression unless Omnibus is man enough to apologise to Professor Gaunt and redress the focus of his question.  My concern is that this much character is lacking - precisely in as much as he impetuously demands verification as he has explained.  Fortunately - right now - Professor Gaunt is probably asleep.  And I will certainly be able to reach him to warn him of this letter and route him to this thread.  But it's been a salutary reminder to me to treat members with much more circumspection.  Omnibus has here shown himself to be irresponsible and entirely unreliable.  I at least know more of the nature of the beast - so to speak.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

indeed. my apologies for sussing out the links.

P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com

Send me an email to my address with your name attached to that email and I may yet take the trouble to forward you the pdf.  I would also first require you to correct that mishmash of misinformation you managed to convey to Professor Gaunt and also, possibly to Professor Tapsen.

Send me an email to my address with your name attached to that email and I may yet take the trouble to forward you the pdf.  I would also first require you to correct that mishmash of misinformation you managed to convey to Professor Gaunt and also, possibly to Professor Tapsen.

What mishmash that might be?

No, no. I'm not asking him whether he attended a demonstration or not. Neither did I ask him as to whether he approved of protocols, whatever that means. I'm asking him if he did confirm independently the claims for the energy disbalance. That's the only thing I'm interested in -- independent confirmation of the discussed energy disbalance. Nothing short of it.

Omnibus - am I dreaming.  Didn't you advise us that you're widely connected to academics - all over the place?  How then, with that much education - can you refer to energy disbalance?  It's termed 'imbalance'.  Unless of course English is not your natural tongue.  In which case I can understand it.  And how does ANYONE independently confirm energy IMbalance without reference to an experiment?  In order to see that evidence requires that there is some apparatus that is able to demonstrate this.  And I have NEVER discussed energy imbalance - nor have I experimented with any concepts related to ENERGY IMBALANCE.  Now you have entirely lost me.  I think what you need to do here in the interests of transparency - is actually disclose your email right here - on open source.  Because, right now the semantics that you are trying to use to disguise the damage you've done is actually patently obvious.  And I need re-assurance that the damage is NOT too extreme.  Right now you are stating to two learned and respected Professors that I have claimed that they accredited my results.  THIS IS FALSE.

The e-mail to prof. Tapson is also sent. Thanks @WilbyInebrated for the help. You're good at it.

Before reading the manuscript I'd like to hear what these two colleagues have to say regarding the experiment.

tu stultus es... qed.

The e-mail to prof. Tapson is also sent. Thanks @WilbyInebrated for the help. You're good at it.

Before reading the manuscript I'd like to hear what these two colleagues have to say regarding the experiment.

And I intend finding out - from them - your actual name and a little bit more about that 'colleague' status.  LOL  Until this last intervention I rather gave you the benefit of the doubt.