Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Indeed, that would be a good thing. I think the readers would like to get Stefan's input here, as it is actually required at this point.

I have given you more than sufficient reason to perform the test. Your denial to do so is illogical and your reasons unfounded.

The desire here is for Rosemary to come clean. The goal I'm sure all the readers have here is to prevent this thread from languishing into the dog and pony show it is presently teetering on becoming. Give the readers the closure they deserve. Show some integrity and perform the test so the facts can be known once and for all.

.99

Poynty - Pickle - Mookie - et al.

I am under no obligations to  peform any tests at all.  They would require close monitoring.  And that monitoring would be at a cost.  I would only consider that cost IF AND WHEN there is EXPERT and written endorsement that should we exceed the battery watt hour rating by - let's say double - then the entire academic community would consider that test to be DEFINITIVE proof of the  claim.  To complete both tests would take upwards of 2 months of monitoring and that is out of the question.  It's feasible to run the heavy duty wattage number as a control and then simply run the test to the duration of that control.  But even then I would need not less than 48 hours to make a significant reduction in the control.  Which means that I would also need to run the test for that same 48 hours.  That's doable - but still expensive - at not less than R2000.00.  And I may need to get new batteries to perform this as some of my own have been compromised by a fire.  I would also possibly need to add more batteries to the control as I'd need to reach an equivalent heat.  Not sure yet.  Possibly this can be adjusted downwards.

But whichever way this is cut - it means an awful lot of work, and time and expense.  I absolutely will NOT engage on this unless and until I have the absolute confirmation that this will cut it.  That thereafter there will be wide and complete endorsement by the entire academic community and assurance of that endorsement given in advance of the test, by not less than 5 experts. Otherwise - it's a non starter. 

Rosemary

So.  Again.  The onus is actually not on me - but on you.

edited.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry utilitarian - I've only just understood your point about the publicity associated with that claim for Randi's prize money. 

If publicity worked in academic circles then I'd definitely go for it.  It doesn't - unfortunately.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to them.  There are not that many who even read these forums - and there would be almost none who read his.  And even if this got to the front page news - our academics would first require that it's published in an academic journal - or at least been accredited by experts as an anomaly.  Academics are not like us mere mortals utilitarian.  Surely you know that by now.



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[happyfunball]

Happy read the report.  I'll post a link again.  I'll also try and find a picture of that element resistor. It was not in water.  It was in the canister to conform to the control tests. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html

Cant really sift through the full report.

I take it the 'element resistor' was used to gauge heat generation? Is that the reading shown on the fluke?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Cant really sift through the full report.

I take it the 'element resistor' was used to gauge heat generation? Is that the reading shown on the fluke?

yes.

[happyfunball]

yes.

Ok thanks