Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Can you state unequivocally at this point that there is no battery drain in the period of time required to boil water? If not, someone is going to have to do that test.

Yes Happy.  I can.  Unequivocally.  There is  NO drop in battery voltage.  And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery - and the mean average showed a negative product and the heat at 80 degrees C was sustained for a period of not less than 80 MINUTES - and then it was taken to an even higher value of 104 degrees C  over a period of another 8 or thereby minutes.  And then I HAD to stop that test, because the last ten minutes indicated that it was now running at runaway wattage values.  And, frankly, I was getting nervous.  But AT NO STAGE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE DEPLETED BY THE BATTERY.  EVERYTHING STAYED AT NEGATIVE VALUES.  Therefore UNEQUIVOCALLY NO ENERGY WAS EXPENDED FROM THE SOURCE.

Regards,
Rosemary

[MrMag]

Dear Wilby,

It is my opinion that you're doing Mags a gross injustice by assuming he is capable of any kind of reasoning.  He, like Cat and even Poynty - still think that I can power up my circuit and let it run for months without supervision.  I've explained that this is not possible.  For some reason the settings 'slip' and and within minutes the temperature on the resistor element reaches dangerous levels.  This 'danger' can be lessened while that element is inserted in water.  But over time, that water will evaporate and under conditions of heat it will evaporate 'at speed'.  Within a brief 2 hours most of that water will have gone.  Then?  What does one do?  Let the 'hot' part of the element melt the plastic container?  And then everything around that element?  But then - OBVIOUSLY - we can insert the element in that much water that it never reaches boiling point.  Which also means that we could also never prove how much heat was being dissipated.  The only way to run the test that Cat, and Poynty DEMAND is that we run it under close supervision.  I'll do this gladly.  Just pay me to make it worth my while.  Because I KNOW that no-one who matters even asks for that test.  And to DEMAND that I run it is PROFOUNDLY UNREASONABLE unless, obviously, there's some promise of recognition for those test results.  And I CERTAINLY don't mean recognition by Mags or Cat. 

Kindest regards Wilby.  Clearly you're tireless.  Me - I'm not so much any more.  This is all getting more than I can manage.

Rosie

Wilby,

Please explain to rosey that she could possibly use the circuit that (I think it was) Poynt showed. Then she would not have to use the external signal generator. Also, she could possibly use oil or glycol instead of water. Please assure her that there are ways that this test could be performed unsupervised. All she would have to do is try to listen to others instead of trying to come off as the all knowing authority.

You can also tell her that possibly the reason "no-one that matters" has asked for this test is that they don't believe in her circuit at all. At least I am, and possibly others are willing to accept her claim if she can prove it through this test. I have never DEMANDED that she do the test, all I have done numerous time is request that she do the test.

[MrMag]

Yes Happy.  I can.  Unequivocally.  There is  NO drop in battery voltage.  And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery - and the mean average showed a negative product and the heat at 80 degrees C was sustained for a period of not less than 80 MINUTES - and then it was taken to an even higher value of 104 degrees C  over a period of another 8 or thereby minutes.  And then I HAD to stop that test, because the last ten minutes indicated that it was now running at runaway wattage values.  And, frankly, I was getting nervous.  But AT NO STAGE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE DEPLETED BY THE BATTERY.  EVERYTHING STAYED AT NEGATIVE VALUES.  Therefore UNEQUIVOCALLY NO ENERGY WAS EXPENDED FROM THE SOURCE.

Regards,
Rosemary

I think this is questionable.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think this is questionable.

Since you clearly do not have what's needed to 'think with' then your 'thoughts' on this and anything at all - are ENTIRELY irrelevant.
R

[WilbyInebriated]

Dear Wilby,

It is my opinion that you're doing Mags a gross injustice by assuming he is capable of any kind of reasoning.

you are absolutely correct... evidenced by his reply #1612

Maybe i'm waiting for your friend rosey to answer mine first.

which is absolutely pathetic. and his third time avoiding my simple, direct questions. i thought from previous conversations he was reasonable. my mistake mr.mag, my mistake...