Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, it seems that Poynty's flaming has now stopped and Stefan has given license to a new pretender.  Please just concentrate on Groundloops presentations here.  These last contributions are utterly irrelevant.  But I suspect we're going to need to ignore an awful lot of posts if history is about to repeat itself. 

If, for whatever reason this lastest contributor actually manages to lock this thread and get me banned - then look for me on my blog.  I'll just continue posting there. 

kindest regards,
Rosie

[fuzzytomcat]

May I remind everyone about a replication in the scientific method ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote -

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently.

The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


This would mean a duplicate, same as, clone or exactly the same device.

This would also mean no substitutions on any components.

The above stipulations exist for a scientific replication to verify the claimed results of any electronic circuit no exceptions.

.

[The Boss]

Kindest regards and thanks for the well wishes.
Rosemary

Thank you Rosemary ..you too.

The Boss

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - another quick comment about Romero's work.  I see an in depth discussion on this on Poynty's forum and some very appropriate analyses by some of those members.  This is where I needs must pay tribute to the disciplines of the forum.  Indeed open source advances ones learning and secures knowledge that it never becomes secreted by an exploitive few. 

Very nice Poynty Point.  It shows what you're capable of on either side of a preferred argument.  All that's lacking is consistency.  But it's good to see what your members are capable of when their interest is finally piqued.

Regards,
Rosemary 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Guys, I think, round about now, I should try and explain the relevance of Romero's work to our own - albeit less dramatic evidence.  It has nothing to do with the results and everything to do with the measurements.

You guys are captivated by the motor.  With good reason.  It's sexier to see those moving parts.  You're all of you skilled experimentalists - and the 'holy grail' of all this research is to get rid of any overt dependency on an energy supply source.  Therein lies 'true freedom' so to speak.  Certainly it extends one's potential for true self reliance away from a direct geographic reliance on our supply monopolists.  But - by the same token, it has been impossibly difficult to prove a motor's efficiencies.  One just needs to look at the work of Bedini et al - and their efforts in this regard.

Now, while those numbers could be contended - while the actual level of efficiency was subject to any kind of debate - then there was also no reason to consider any such work to be any real threat to our jealous energy suppliers.  Therefore was there also no real reason to mount a campaign of objection.  And even where the efficiencies were debated and contended - it was never enough justification to halt progress, so to speak.  That motor configuration was going to be studied - no matter what.  It's where your hearts lie.  With good reason.  Back to the 'sexiness' of moving parts and to the compelling and compulsive interests of all you engineers.

Our own experimental evidence was always compelling.  Coupled with which there was a pesky prediction required for those results in an eccentric thesis.  And that thesis represented an entire departure from conventional phyiscs.  Field theory reduced to a digital analysis and requiring consideration of nothing more than a positive - a negative and a neutral.  In effect, it was nothing more than a philosophical reach into dialectic exercise in logic.  But it had some rather compelling parallels to known physics.  No overt contradictions to what was classical and what was quantum and even what was not.  It conformed.

What was not arguable was the repeatability of the experimental proof of that thesis.  And so it was absolutely required to attack - not so much the results - but the person advancing those results.  Not the message so much as the messenger.  I don't think I need remind you all.  Threads flamed, threads locked, threads dedicated to maligning me, and on and on. Certainly I was widely painted as a deluded incompetent and there was even a time where I was accused of the fraudulent attempt to somehow capitalise on this knowledge which I'd plagiarised from Open Source.  But it's painful to remember it all let alone to reference it here. And it's inappropriate to moralise.  So.  I'll try and get to the point.

Which is this.  There is no earthly way that you can get a self runner without accessing an energy supply that has heretofore been 'outlawed' by our scientific community.  This is now 'in the bag'.  What must follow on from this is a sincere revision of those concepts related to energy.  And most especially this needs a radical revision of the actual properties of energy itself.  This will now need some real attention from our brightest and best academicians.  And here we can all rest easy.  Theoreticians have been somewhat adventurous in pointing to explanations.  But to the best of my knowledge there is no theoretician that has presumed to propose, let alone to analyse, the actual properties of energy.  And as that is now required - I am reaonably certain that they'll come to the table to address this.  And physics is absolutely NOT determined by speculation.  A line of argument is either right or it's wrong.  And in the unlikely event that my own exercise is even half-way right - or even if it's entirely wrong - then the fact is that the explanation will STILL BE NEEDED.  And thus far they've been able to avoid the question at all. 

I hope that goes some way to explaining my relief in seeing the good work that Romero's doing - and indeed that all are doing in their efforts to protect this knowledge and keep it open source.  And I trust it will explain the relevance to this thread topic - circuitously (lol) related as it is to our own work.  If I am even 'half way right' then what I'm seeing is the potential, not only of defeating those prescribed constraints in the transfer of energy - but of defeating even the gravitational forces.  It's all good news.  I see a bright beacon of light - where I am only used to pointing to a small 'glimmer'.   And that glimmer was shrouded by the most concerted attack that has ever been advanced on these forums.  And, by the looks of our latest contributor here, is likely to continue. 

Anyway.  It's all good news everyone.  Really, really good news.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary