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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84248
  • *Latest: khniki

  • *Total Posts: 898002
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 780209 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #660 on: February 13, 2012, 01:09:56 AM »
Guys, just to remind you all.  This is Mags' proposal for a DEFINITIVE TEST.

Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #661 on: February 13, 2012, 01:13:14 AM »
Here's the list of caveats to doing that test.

Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.   :o Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   8)

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.
 

I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #662 on: February 13, 2012, 01:15:28 AM »
And here's WHY those caveats are required.
Dear Magsy,

You're on the money.  As ever.  NOW.  That argument is PRECISELY the argument that BP used when they evaluated our circuit.  We had to do these tests over days and weeks where we tested one against the other in a series of tests that were designed to give UNEQUIVOCAL RESULTS.  We included those EXACT PARAMETERS.  We checked voltage drops against a control.  Exactly as you've suggested.  We even did that exact comparison in those tests that we published in Quantum.  Over a 17 hour test duration we found that the control was flat when our circuit batteries had barely discharged a fraction of a volt.   A Professor Jandrell at WITS university - reviewed that paper.  IN HIS WISDOM he REFUSED TO LET US PUBLISH THOSE SCHEDULES.  For the first time in HISTORY an academic required that we DECREASE the data forwarded as evidence rather than ADD to it.  Which may or may not be construed as a deliberate attempt to diminish that evidence.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  Our academics are no fools.  IF INDEED - the argument hinged on the evidence against an ACTUAL APPLICATION - and if that evidence related to an EVALUATION OF THE CHEMISTRY OF THOSE BATTERIES - which is begged by that argument - then HIS OBJECTIONS ARE VALID.  And our academics know better than pose an objection if it is NOT first VALID - ON WHATEVER GROUNDS.

SO.  The irony is this.  Since that event - then the entire THRUST of all objections to our claim is this - LET IT RUN.  Just run it for as long as required and then come back - in a year or two and represent that CLAIM.  I am on RECORD.  It is entirely UNREASONABLE TO SIMPLY RUN OUR OWN CIRCUIT AND GAUGE BATTERY DRAW DOWNS.  THERE ARE NONE.  CONVERSELY.  It is entirely REASONABLE to simply run our own circuit against a control and COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE.  That's definitely DOABLE.  But it will involve me in an ENORMOUS amount of time, and even the expenditure of some money.  Because those tests need close monitoring.  And I am NOT about to let those switches 'do their thing' without monitoring.  I've seen that off set button default - at arbitrary moments in our experiments - that it can feed enough energy though the system to NUKE that circuit apparatus.  It's too risky to leave it unattended.

HOWEVER.  I will GLADLY do this test.  PROVIDED ONLY that this then carries the written endorsement of qualified academics that this will represent unequivocal proof of our argument.  Otherwise - where I may satisfy your own criteria - or those of you who depend on this argument - we'll still be left WITHOUT ACADEMIC ENDORSEMENT.  They can still come back and say - 'SO WHAT.  You've omitted a detailed account of the chemical interaction of the batteries that chemical interaction may, indeed, fully ACCOUNT FOR THAT ANOMALY'.

I'm not about to be bitten twice.  It's NOT an easy test to set up - believe it or not.  And it is NOT easy to monitor.  And it certainly is NOT an option unless there is a WIDE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS THEN UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF.  I'm not about to waste my time - yet again.  Get me a couple of academics who will go on record stating that this is ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR PROOF.  AND I'LL DO THAT TEST.  WITH PLEASURE.

But I absolutely agree with you Mags.  I KNOW that the test that you propose here is CONCLUSIVE.  It's getting our academics to acknowledge this that matters.  I would LOVE it if all our members here simply did these tests for themselves, looked at that oscillation - and puzzled out it's existence at all - in the light of a disconnected battery supply.  But I'm REALLY only interested in convincing our academics.  Because - in the final analysis - if they are NOT convinced by experimental evidence then this and any other over unity claims are dead at birth.  Still born.  Aborted. 

Kindest and best and thanks for reminding me about this argument.
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #662 on: February 13, 2012, 01:15:28 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #663 on: February 13, 2012, 01:17:35 AM »
Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the DEFINITIVE test I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #664 on: February 13, 2012, 01:23:00 AM »
Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the one I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99

it seems, Poynty Point that your talents at misinformation are bottomless.  And your grasp of history is more pragmatic than accurate.  I AM ON RECORD.  I HAVE NOT REFUSED IT.  I HAVE REPEATEDLY OFFERED IT ON OUR PREVIOUS LOCKED THREADS WITH PRECISELY THE SAME CONDITIONS AND FOR PRECISELY THE SAME REASONS. 

And I am not about to go into an explanation as to why that test you propose is RIDICULOUSLY INEFFECTIVE.  It speaks for itself.  Just another reckless attempt at misguiding all and sundry. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #664 on: February 13, 2012, 01:23:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #665 on: February 13, 2012, 01:28:55 AM »
And, Poynty Point.  I put it to you that IF that is a definitive test - then there should be absolutely NO difficulties in finding the academics to endorse it.  I suspect that you'll have difficulties - notwithstanding.  And then you'll begin to appreciate why it is that I have difficulty in engaging ANY ACADEMICS AT ALL to go ON RECORD - about any part of these our claims.

Always and ever,
Rosie Posie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #666 on: February 13, 2012, 01:49:19 AM »
Here's a direct copy from a LOCKED THREAD.  I've highlighted the comment related to battery draw down tests. So don't give me that I've REFUSED to do that test.  It was discussed in depth.

Which makes this statement somewhat questionable - to put it politely.
Guys, just to remind you all.  This test proposed by Mags was proposed over two years ago; and there have been several others as well. ALL REFUSED BY ROSEMARY, EVERY TIME.

While doable, the DEFINITIVE test I proposed above (and that Mags seems to be keen on trying) is far more practical, easy, and expeditious.

.99


And here's that first reference - chosen at random.
 solid state devices / Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 « on: June 24, 2011, 01:48:43 AM »   
My dear Cat.  I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work.  What happened?  Why are you back?  I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.

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 per second 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.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

Now.  Back to your demands.  You want conclusive evidence.  It's already there.  But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death.  I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control.  But again.  I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.


And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE.  What if you're wrong?  What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG?  Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda?  What then?  I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.

Which means what?  It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here.  Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green?  So.  I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate.  And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate.  And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured.  I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief.  So.  I"m not writing for you.  I'm writing for the readers.

Regards,
Rosemary 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #666 on: February 13, 2012, 01:49:19 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #667 on: February 13, 2012, 02:56:32 AM »
Wow!  More Rosemary math.  I thought we went through this before.  Your math skills stink.  It was wrong back in June, and it's still wrong.

MISTER Bubba

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #668 on: February 13, 2012, 04:26:05 AM »
Holy carp. I check in just for "grins" and I find this jewel of pseudomathematics from Rosemary.

Here's what happens when you drop out of high school and ignore mathematics.

Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
Notice that there's no TIME ELEMENT in that definition.
Quote
  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.

OK... so that took how many Joules of energy? 900 grams x 66 degrees x 4.18 Joules per gram per degree=  248292 Joules. This is how much energy was expended to heat the water. The TIME DOES NOT ENTER here.
Quote

We ran that test for 90 minutes.

OK... so you expended 248292 Joules PER 90 minutes. This is an energy divided by a TIME... .which gives a RATE of energy dissipation... aka POWER. Your average power was  (248292/(90x60)) = 45.98 Watts for the first 90 minutes.
Quote
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.

NO---A JOULE IS ONE WATT_SECOND, NOT ONE WATT/SECOND. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR YOU KEEP MAKING. And how did you get water up to 104 degrees C? Did you use a pressurized container? The rise from 82 to 104 C  (22 degrees, not 20) will take another 4.18 x 900 x 22 = 82,764 Joules, and if you expended those in 10 minutes, your average power for that phase was (82,764/(10x60)) = 138 Watts. That is if you were able to keep the water from boiling. If the water boiled, that phase change into steam takes a lot more energy.... but still nothing like the numbers you come up with below. You've expended more like half a million Joules, not the 25 million you claim so foolishly right out in public with your laughable "math". It's no wonder your batteries might show the same voltage after as before--- you've barely tapped their total capacity.
Quote

So.  Do the math.

EVERYBODY READING HERE IS ROFLING RIGHT NOW>>>>>
Quote

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.  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. 
Preserved for posterity....
This is completely wrong. See my calculation of the first 90 minutes above. The phase change due to boiling will take a lot of energy but not nearly as much as your numbers here.
Quote
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. 
If your calculations are as above, I have shown that they are incorrect.... therefore you are once again spewing your particular brand of ignorant and arrogant bullshit.
Quote
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.
There is no way to know that a battery is fully charged... unless you DISCHARGE IT AND MEASURE THE ENERGY. Then, of course, it won't be charged any more.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #668 on: February 13, 2012, 04:26:05 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #669 on: February 13, 2012, 04:43:14 AM »
And I am not about to go into an explanation as to why that test you propose is RIDICULOUSLY INEFFECTIVE.  It speaks for itself.  Just another reckless attempt at misguiding all and sundry. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Gyula,

Rosemary has conceded that you possesses expert knowledge in these matters. I'd very much like to hear your expert opinion on whether my test would be effective and definitive.

Regards,
.99

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #670 on: February 13, 2012, 04:54:26 AM »
Doesn't anyone else but me have a calculator and a freshman EE textbook?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #670 on: February 13, 2012, 04:54:26 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #671 on: February 13, 2012, 05:22:23 AM »
 :-X

Offline PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #672 on: February 13, 2012, 05:49:11 AM »
Ouch... Yeah, you have to count the time factor in there Rosemary.
You mentioned 72k volts or something like that number somewhere else in this thread and I thought that one sounded funny too. Discharged nearly instantaneously or unaccounted for or something... This thread is too long already to go digging for quotes. Sorry Rose, these guys have some seriously convincing arguments that you are WRONG about how you measure your circuit and your interpretation of the data. You just made simple math errors and touted them as empirical evidence. It becomes more difficult to take your mystery 'oscillations' seriously. I say they are feedback from looping Q1 and Q2 but I don't know CRAP compared to poynt99 and TK and Gyula. Hell, I didn't even understand half of what Gyula said the first time I read it!
ALL of them have more knowledge about electronics than you do Rose (and WAAAAY more than me). Maybe you're onto something, who knows? I say this again: I see a mobius loop in there. I think that is the key to finding the elusive OU, but again, who knows?
Boiling a couple cups of water doesn't take tens of millions of joules or six twelve volt batteries. Even I know that... 
Is this really how you have been making your POWER calculations?!? Holy crap...
(Looks around for flying towels...)

Regards,
Derrick
 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #673 on: February 13, 2012, 06:10:44 AM »
That last bit of arrogant mathematical nonsense from Rosemary should be the definitive nail in the coffin of the Ainslie claims. It's all there for anyone to see.  What do you think, Stefan? What do you think, Professor Jones? You are dealing with someone who not only makes up her own definitions of terms, but who cannot compute and WILL NOT LEARN to compute fundamental circuit parameters correctly.  Why bother to design tests, when she doesn't even understand power and energy calculations, much less subtle factors like instrument ground loops and integration of spiky waveforms?

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #674 on: February 13, 2012, 06:23:12 AM »
And, Poynty Point.  I put it to you that IF that is a definitive test - then there should be absolutely NO difficulties in finding the academics to endorse it.  I suspect that you'll have difficulties - notwithstanding.  And then you'll begin to appreciate why it is that I have difficulty in engaging ANY ACADEMICS AT ALL to go ON RECORD - about any part of these our claims.

Always and ever,
Rosie Posie

TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!

 

OneLink