Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99 · May 23, 2011, 08:27:42 PM

Is this forward-looking technical thread going to remain on-track, or continue to degenerate into a grandstanding theater for presenting he-said, she-said statements from the past?

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · May 23, 2011, 11:32:59 PM

Hi all,
it seems that my pc has been hacked - again. Still this one now works. There was a struggle there for a bit. lol

Poynty - regarding your question - I'm sure that the answer is obvious. I think that while Glen is entitled to post then we're going to continue having problems. But I tend to agree. It's never going to advance anything at all.

So how about it? Your forum? Or should we just discuss this through my blog? I'm game - either way. Unless there's some kind of written undertaking that Glen will stay out of the debate.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

WilbyInebriated · May 24, 2011, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: poynt99 on May 23, 2011, 08:27:42 PM
Is this forward-looking technical thread going to remain on-track, or continue to degenerate into a grandstanding theater for presenting he-said, she-said statements from the past?

.99

do you have a problem with the questions posed to glen in my previous posts? and if so why?

Rosemary Ainslie · May 24, 2011, 07:56:34 PM

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2011, 12:56:47 AM
do you have a problem with the questions posed to glen in my previous posts? and if so why?

Wilby - whether or not Poynty has a problem with these or any other questions is no longer the issue. The fact is that Glen has now publicly exposed the fact that he denies the results of his earlier 'replication' as it was referred to in both submitted papers. That's is all that matters or counts - or is relevant. So. Let's take it that the paper was a joke. That the replication never happened. And that there can be NO discovery as he 'infers' or as is suggested - PRECISELY because he has now PUBLICLY declared his doubts on those measurements. Which means that he must now WITHDRAW that publication and make a public retraction. That, at least, would be principled. Anything else is unacceptable. Else he's also disgracing the high reach of Open Sourcing anything at all by allowing it to degenerate into yet another unsubstantiated claim that tarnishes our best efforts.

I don't have to reach that far back in his posts to find the appropriate post. Here it is.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 04:48:08 AM

After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word "GOOD".

Good defined as

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 04:48:08 AMFull circle again .... there was no COP> 17 found.

Which presumably inter alia - includes his COP>4 as he DOUBTS the measurements.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 05:51:51 AM
The "MODIFIED" replication was because from all experimentalist working on the project it was found the published electronic circuit in the Quantum 2002 article did not work, and using the new "MODIFIED" circuit in TEST #13 it had the problems months later that was found as quoted in my posting at Energetic Forum I failed with "NO" scientific method replication of Rosemary Ainslie's COP> 17 device verifying her finding and claim ... I found "NO" COP> 17 in my scientific method of testing and evaluation which if it was found would be quite obvious.

And added to which he also did NOT manage to replicate that earlier COP>4 claim which is actually ALL that's relevant.

What is as clear as daylight is that what Glen actually meant to do was throw doubt on his earlier COP>4 claim. Tests from 13 through to 22 - were all done after his Scribd publication. For some reason he has not yet realised that these doubts are now embedded. He needs must WITHDRAW his association with that paper if he is to behave in as principled a manner as required. Which is important. Because then his comments or claims against our own work is then of no force and effect. He's not qualified to comment except to say that in his own opinion and in the light of his own best efforts he could NOT SUBSTANTIATE ANY OVER UNITY RESULT. That would be the level of clarity required. And what he thinks of me - although of great interest to himself - is of no relevance to the issue.

However, the actual dilemma - as we all know - is that he wants to 'infer' COP>4 is possible but that COP>17 is not. Which is a joke. Because if you can manage COP greater as little as 1 - then one is entertaining the real potential of COP infinity. It's the same thing. All of which speaks to 'agenda'. And I'm sick of agendas. What we're meant to be doing is debating science. Nothing else. So. In the interests of getting back on topic can I assume that Glen will stay out of the debate? If not - then Poynty Point - I'm very anxious to 'move on'. How about using your forum or my blogspot. I'm happy with either.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added some emphasis. lol

poynt99 · May 24, 2011, 08:32:32 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 24, 2011, 07:56:34 PM
So. In the interests of getting back on topic can I assume that Glen will stay out of the debate? If not - then Poynty Point - I'm very anxious to 'move on'. How about using your forum or my blogspot. I'm happy with either.

Although my preference has always been to continue here with what I wish to present, it is a shame recent posts have indicated that this may not be possible. I do not wish to carry on this discussion at OUR.

.99